Canadian Doctors Grapple with Euthanising Vulnerable Patients

16.11.2024

An investigation by the Associated Press has uncovered deep ethical concerns among Canadian healthcare workers over the country’s euthanasia system, one of the most permissive in the world. Internal discussions on private forums reveal that doctors and nurses are struggling with requests from vulnerable individuals—often those facing socioeconomic challenges rather than terminal illnesses.

Cases debated on these forums include a homeless man refusing long-term care, a severely obese woman, an injured worker receiving minimal government assistance, and grieving widows. While some requests were approved and acted upon, others were denied. The exchanges expose the moral distress of healthcare professionals navigating Canada’s legal framework for euthanasia, which allows the practice for individuals with “irremediable suffering” from serious but non-fatal conditions.

Internal data obtained by AP from Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, suggests a troubling trend: a significant portion of euthanasia cases occur in the poorest areas, where individuals often lack adequate housing, financial resources, or social support. Doctors have expressed discomfort with ending the lives of individuals whose suffering might have been mitigated through improved living conditions or access to services.

“I don’t want [euthanasia] to become the solution to every kind of suffering out there,” one physician wrote in a private forum.

Canada legalised euthanasia in 2016. Safeguards were promised to protect vulnerable populations, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau assuring that no one would be euthanised due to a lack of adequate support. However, medical professionals say the safeguards are too vague, leading to morally challenging decisions.

The findings come as Canada considers expanding euthanasia access further, including provisions for those with mental health conditions. This is despite the fact the system’s existing gaps highlight the risks of broadening its scope, particularly for individuals who might benefit from non-lethal interventions.

The debate raises broader questions about the role of socioeconomic factors in so called “assisted dying” requests and why the question of adequate support systems are in place to address the root causes of suffering is not considered.