B.C. Supreme Court Protects Vulnerable Woman from Husband’s ‘Death Plan’

The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Vancouver Island Health Authority, removing a husband from his role as his wife’s representative due to a concerning “death plan” he allegedly devised. The court’s decision aims to protect the woman, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, from potential harm at the hands of her spouse.

In a ruling issued last week, the court found that the husband, whose name has not been disclosed, had expressed a strong belief in medical assistance in dying (MAID). He reportedly informed family, friends, and health authority staff that he would end his wife’s life, followed by his own, should she be deemed ineligible for the procedure.

Background on the Case

The woman was initially assessed in 2020 and determined eligible for MAID. However, a subsequent evaluation in 2021 found that she lacked the ability to consent, as a doctor noted she “no longer had sufficient insight into her dementia.” This change in her condition prompted the Vancouver Island Health Authority to take legal action after receiving reports from medical professionals regarding the husband’s intentions.

Justice Bradford Smith’s ruling emphasized that the only viable option to protect the woman from potential death or severe injury was to revoke her husband’s role as her personal representative. Instead, the court granted this authority to her daughter, ensuring that her best interests would be safeguarded moving forward.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate family, raising significant ethical questions about the intersection of end-of-life choices and patient protection. The decision underscores the responsibility of health authorities in safeguarding vulnerable patients from coercive or harmful actions by family members.

This report highlights the ongoing discussions surrounding MAID in Canada, particularly as it relates to patients with cognitive impairments. The case reflects the complexities involved in ensuring that individuals retain their rights to make choices about their own care while also protecting them from potential exploitation.

The ruling serves as a critical reminder of the need for vigilance in cases where patients may not have the capacity to make informed decisions regarding their health and end-of-life preferences.