A British Columbia judge took the unusual step of preventing a woman’s medically assisted death, issuing a court order at the 11th hour halting the procedure, according to documents filed over the weekend.
The restraining order, signed by Judge Simon R. Koval, was the first of its kind in the state and was issued Saturday, one day before the woman was scheduled to die.
This would prevent Dr. Ellen Wiebe and other doctors from “causing death” of a 53-year-old woman “by maid or other means.” The lawsuit followed a notice of civil suit alleging that Wiebe inadvertently authorized procedures for patients for whom he was not legally eligible.
“If Defendants proceed with MAID, the deaths will become a series of wrongful deaths (of patients) and, in some cases, criminal offenses,” the complaint states.
“It is within the inherent jurisdiction of this honorable court to injunction against a criminal act, in this case the termination of a patient’s life and/or the protection of a patient from injury where the legal standards are deemed not to have been met. It is within the range of
None of the allegations have been tested in court, and Mr. Wiebe has not yet filed a response. Wiebe also declined to comment when contacted by CTV News on Tuesday.
The woman, whose name was granted by the court, was from another western province and had traveled to British Columbia to work as a maid, according to an injunction application filed by her common-law partner. (Not done).
“She couldn’t get clearance from her own doctor (in her hometown), so she started searching online for other doctors who might be willing to accommodate her request. She ended up looking for Dr. Ellen Wiebe. ,” the application states, adding that the woman had several Zoom meetings with a B.C. doctor and outspoken supporter of MAID.
“At the end of the first meeting, Dr. Wiebe approved (the woman’s) participation in MAID.”
Does the woman qualify for MAID?
The claim alleges that the woman’s underlying health conditions make her ineligible for medically assisted death, known as Track 2 MAID, which sets standards when death is “not reasonably foreseeable.” .
Legally, individuals whose “only symptom” is a mental illness or disability are not eligible for MAID, and this exemption will remain in effect until at least March 2027.
According to the civil lawsuit notice, the woman has been diagnosed with “rapid cycling bipolar disorder type 2 disorder.” However, she sought MAID based on “akathisia,” a condition associated with changing doses of psychotropic and antipsychotic medications. According to the American Psychiatric Association, the condition is “an inability to sit or stand, extreme restlessness characterized by fidgeting and nervousness, and a subjective report of inner restlessness.” It is said to appear as
In October 2023, the woman was prescribed a high dose of quetiapine, but then tried to reduce the dose soon after.
“As she tapered off her medication, (she) began to talk about distressing side effects. She was plagued by ‘fears’ or internal fears all day long, unable to sleep at night, having nightmares, and feeling like she was falling.” He said he was unable to lie down, sit or stay still during the day, and had suicidal thoughts. “We believe that,” the injunction application states.
“At the same time, (she) continued to express a desire to die. She was regularly pleading with (her partner) to end her life because she did not want to do it herself. ”
According to court documents, the woman and her partner had an emergency consultation with a doctor in their home state 11 days before her scheduled medically assisted death, in which they learned the condition was treatable and symptoms could resolve within months. He was told that he had sex.
“In this case, (the woman) is actively pursuing death over the objections of the doctors actively treating her. She was able to find someone in B.C. ,” the application notice states.
“This incident raises serious questions about whether (the woman) actually qualifies for MAID Track 2. Of particular concern is that akathisia is linked to the amount of drugs used to treat mental illness. It appears to be a set of symptoms associated with changes in the condition.” It is treatable, but (the woman) was not following the recommended treatment. ”
In addition to alleging that the woman was seeking MAID under conditions that would disqualify her from receiving it, the lawsuit raises a number of concerns about the process by which MAID was approved.
“Potential for serious failure”?
MAID legislation is set out in the Criminal Code of Canada, which outlines the circumstances in which a health-care worker can cause the death of another person without committing a crime.
The law stipulates that patients must be “suffering from a serious and incurable medical condition.” It is defined as being in a state of irreversible, advanced deterioration that is not curable. It also requires that the patient’s condition “cause intolerable physical or psychological suffering to the patient and cannot be resolved under conditions the patient considers tolerable.”
According to court documents, the woman’s partner questioned whether akathisia was “incurable” and questioned Wiebe’s willingness to approve the procedure during a Zoom call.
“[The partner]asked Dr. Wiebe if he had ever done MAID on someone with akathisia. Dr. Wiebe said no. During the same Zoom session,[the partner]also asked… “We attempted to describe (the woman) as someone with unresolved mental health issues, which likely were not considered in the MAID evaluation,” the application notice states.
“Dr. Wiebe responded by stating that the diagnosis does not matter, only quality of life matters, and this is a (woman’s) right.”
The lawsuit also alleges that Wiebe did not speak directly to any of the woman’s doctors, did not request medical records, and only reviewed some of the records provided by the patient via email.
In Track 2 cases, where death is not reasonably foreseeable, there are also certain requirements intended to serve as a “safeguard against abuse,” the complaint explains.
Among them are the requirements that more than one doctor consent to the procedure and that the second doctor must be independent of the first.
The notice of application also alleges that no such thing occurred in this case.
“(The woman) did not have a doctor to perform a secondary diagnosis. Dr. Wiebe arranged for (another British Columbia-based physician) to be the second evaluator. (The woman) I met with (the doctor) via Zoom,” court documents state.
The lawsuit further alleges that when the woman was unable to find someone to witness the signing of her MAID documents, Wiebe found and provided someone to fill that role.
“This lawsuit seeks to address potentially significant deficiencies in the application of the MAID system,” court documents summarize the claims.
The judge’s reasons for granting the injunction have not yet been made public.
