The Evangelical Fellowship (EFC) of Canada submitted a stakeholders report January 24 to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for its 32nd session, March 3 – 21, 2025.
Following is the beginning of the eight-page report.
Report author
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) is the national association of evangelical Christian denominations, churches, post-secondary institutions and organizations in Canada. Established in 1964, the EFC provides a forum for collaboration and engagement among the roughly 1.7 million Evangelicals who are part of its constituency.
For additional information, please contact The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada at [email protected] or visit www.TheEFC.ca.
This report provides information and recommendations to the Government of Canada on the impact of Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAiD) regime on people with disabilities, its disproportionate impact on women with disabilities, and its consequences for the right to life.
Eliminate discrimination (art. 4-5)
Eligibility for euthanasia and assisted suicide, known by the sanitized term of medical assistance in dying or MAiD, has been linked to disability since the regime was passed into law in 2016. The initial legislation established eligibility for those with a “serious and incurable illness, disease or disability” whose natural death was “reasonably foreseeable.”
These terms are ambiguous and subjectively interpreted by healthcare practitioners. Reasonably foreseeable natural death has been defined by some medical practitioners as a prognosis of up to 10 years.i In the preliminary stages of a court challenge of the law, expert testimony proposed that a person’s death may be considered reasonably foreseeable if they indicate an intention to refuse treatment or stop preventive care.ii
In 2021, Canada passed legislation to create a second track for medical assistance in dying. This legislation (former Bill C-7) made people with disabilities or chronic illnesses eligible for euthanasia even if their natural death wasn’t “reasonably foreseeable.” With this change in the law, people who weren’t nearing death could be eligible for euthanasia if they had a disability, putting people with disabilities outside of the protections offered to other Canadians.
An open letter to members of Parliament opposing the legislation was signed by more than 100 disability groups. They called the bill dangerous and discriminatory. They stated, “Bill C-7 sets apart people with disabilities and disabling conditions as the only Canadians to be offered assistance in dying when they are not actually nearing death.”iii
Every major disability rights organization in Canada opposed this change in the law. Many witnesses before parliamentary committees described its negative impact on Canadians with disabilities. One example: “Physicians report that patients with disabilities are requesting MAiD upon learning that the wait time for accessible housing with the supports they require is 10 years or more.”iv Another witness from a national disability rights organization stated, “Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.”v A leading disability rights activist asked the committee, “Will you rise to the defence of human rights?”vi
After the legislation was passed, in a parliamentary review of its provisions, a representative from Inclusion Canada told the special joint committee, “Not a single national organization of persons with disabilities supported the expansion of MAiD, and over 200 independent, non-affiliated organizations representing persons with disabilities actively opposed the expansion.”vii Dr. Heidi Janz, adjunct professor in disability studies, described the medical assistance in dying regime to the committee as “eugenics disguised as autonomy” and asked policymakers to stop the injustice.viii
In September 2024, a coalition of disability rights organizations and two individuals launched a court challenge of the provisions in the legislation which had expanded eligibility for MAiD to persons with a disability who are not dying (known as Track 2 MAiD). The coalition is arguing that providing MAiD solely on the basis of disability is discriminatory and violates rights that are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.ix
Confidence is being placed in the adequacy of the health care system and individual practitioners to screen, protect and safeguard people. However, it should be the function of the legislation to ensure minimum standards of protection and adequate safeguards, not individual medical practitioners in a healthcare system that is in crisis.
There are disturbing reports of conversations on private forums among practitioners about whether patients in vulnerable circumstances are eligible for MAiD, such as those who are homeless or recently bereaved, people whose requests stem from a lack of support.x The media coverage notes, “The controversial cases in the forums have never been disclosed through Canada’s oversight system, even in an anonymized manner.”
Reports like the 2024 report by Ontario’s Chief Coroner shed light on areas of concern, such as patients being euthanized with untreated mental illness and suffering fuelled by poverty and marginalization.xi
Eligibility for euthanasia on the basis of disability endangers and devalues the lives of disabled Canadians.
The EFC recommends the Government of Canada repeal Track 2 MAiD.
We recommend adding precise definitions and objective standards to federal legislation in order to better protect patients, including a clear definition of ‘reasonably foreseeable’ death, such as a prognosis of less than six months until natural death.
The EFC recommends requiring a reflection period for those whose death is reasonably foreseeable. Without this kind of safeguard, a person’s life could be ended on the same day a request is made. A reflection period would ensure a person doesn’t make a life-ending decision on a particularly difficult day.
It is essential to have significant transparency and clear, meaningful reviews of MAiD procedures such as public reports of complaints and findings. As well, it is critical to require strict compliance with the law and clearly set out processes and consequences for non-compliance. An independent review committee or process for MAiD may be advisable.
i https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/lametti-sows-uncertainty-over-meaning-of-foreseeable-death-in-assisted-dying-bill/
ii https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2019/a-watershed-month-for-medical-assistance-in-dying/
iii https://www.vps-npv.ca/stopc7
iv Dr. Heidi Janz, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/JUST/meeting-6/evidence#Int-11001682
v Krista Carr, Inclusion Canada, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/JUST/meeting6/evidence#Int-11001549
vi Dr. Catherine Frazee, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/JUST/meeting-6/evidence#Int11001675
vii https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/AMAD/meeting-27/evidence#Int-11927370
viii https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/AMAD/meeting-28/evidence#Int-11939915
ix https://inclusioncanada.ca/2024/09/27/press-release-disability-rights-coalition-challenges-discriminatory-sections-of-canadas-assisted-dying-law-in-court/#:~:text=The%20coalition%20is%20urging%20the,%E2%80%9CPeople%20are%20dying.
x https://apnews.com/article/euthanasia-ethics-canada-doctors-nonterminal-nonfatal-cases-dfe59b1786592e31d9eb3b826c5175d1
xi https://theconversation.com/maid-and-marginalized-people-coroners-reports-shed-light-on-assisted-death-in-ontario-241661
Go here for the full report.