Yesterday marked exactly 10 years since MAiD legislation came into effect in Canada.
As nurses who have been involved with MAiD since its early years, we are continually amazed by the experiences we have had, the people we have worked alongside, and the organizations that continue to support choice for end of life. Most importantly, we are grateful to those who have shared their lived experiences with us—whether they were considering MAiD for themselves, supporting a loved one through the process, or reflecting on a MAiD death that has already occurred.
As healthcare providers, we have had the privilege of supporting patients and families throughout the MAiD process, including being present during provisions. Those experiences have left us with countless memories of courage, compassion, and connection. We have witnessed families come together, final words of love spoken, cultures and faith traditions honoured, and deeply personal choices respected.
As we mark this 10-year milestone, it is important to recognize the people who made it possible. The healthcare option that Canadians have today did not emerge on its own. It was secured through the efforts of individual people who were willing to share their stories, challenge existing laws, and advocate for change.
To understand the last decade of MAiD in Canada, we must honour those courageous Canadians who helped get us here—and those who continue to advocate for choice and change.
Sue Rodriguez
Sue Rodriguez was a British Columbia woman diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) at the age of 41. ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord, gradually causing paralysis while often leaving cognitive abilities intact.
Following her diagnosis, Rodriguez launched a Charter challenge in British Columbia that ultimately reached the Supreme Court of Canada, referred to as Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General). Through that case, she sought the right to obtain assistance in ending her life at a time of her choosing.
Rodriguez is famously known for her statement “If I cannot give consent to my own death. Whose body is this? Who owns my life?”
On September 30, 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5–4 against Rodriguez, finding that the prohibition on assisted suicide in section 241(b) of the Criminal Code was constitutional. The majority acknowledged that the law deprived Rodriguez of autonomy over decisions concerning her own body and caused both physical and psychological suffering. In reaching that conclusion, the Court emphasized the sanctity of life and the state’s interest in protecting vulnerable persons from potential abuse. The majority accepted that the blanket prohibition limited Rodriguez’s liberty and security of the person, but held that these limits were justified by broader societal concerns.
Although Rodriguez lost her case before the Supreme Court of Canada, she ultimately died peacefully in 1994 with the assistance of an unnamed physician, according to her close friend and former Member of Parliament Svend Robinson.
Rodriguez’s story, shared so publicly and courageously, sparked a national conversation about assisted dying. While she did not live to see the legal changes that followed, her challenge forced Canadians to confront difficult questions about autonomy, suffering, and end-of-life choice. Her legacy lies not only in opening the conversation, but in helping to lay the foundation for the legal and social changes that would eventually follow.
Kay Carter
Kay Carter was an 89-year-old British Columbia woman living with spinal stenosis, a progressive and debilitating condition that caused significant pain and loss of function. She described her body as “totally collapsing.” In January 2010, she travelled to Switzerland to access an assisted death through Dignitas.
The constitutional challenge that would eventually become Carter v. Canada was not filed until April 2011, more than a year after Kay Carter’s death. The original plaintiffs were her daughter, Lee Carter; her son-in-law, Hollis Johnson; the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association; and Dr. William Shoichet. Gloria Taylor was added as plaintiff in June 2011.
Gloria Taylor
Gloria Taylor was a 63 year old British Columbia woman who was also living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). A highly independent woman who proudly spoke about her time riding motorcycles in an era when mostly men rode, she was now faced with progressive physical limitations.
“It is past time for the laws against assisted dying to be changed….I’m just doing this because I feel in my heart that it needs to be done and it’s time that it was done.” - Gloria Taylor
In June 2011, Taylor joined the Carter case to Canada’s prohibition on assisted dying. The British Columbia judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and granted Taylor a constitutional exemption that would have allowed her to access physician-assisted dying under specific circumstances. Before she could use that exemption, however, she died of complications related to ALS.
Carter v Canada Decision
On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided on Carter v. Canada, striking down the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting physician-assisted dying for competent adults suffering from grievous and irremediable medical conditions that caused enduring and intolerable suffering. The Supreme Court gave the government (a conservative government at that time) 12 months to produce legislation pertaining to assisted dying. Bill C-14 was introduced in April 2016 by the newly elected Liberal government and received Royal Assent on June 17, 2016. Bill C-14 was the original MAiD legislation and remained unchanged until March 17, 2021.
It is important to note that Bill C-14 did not fully align with the Carter decision. The Carter decision permitted assisted dying for competent adults with a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring and intolerable suffering. Bill C-14 added the requirement that a person’s natural death be “reasonably foreseeable,” a restriction that was not found in Carter decision. In addition, there was a 10 day waiting period between request for MAiD and provision of MAiD.
Although Taylor did not live to see the final outcome, her evidence became a key part of the legal record. Her affidavit and testimony are still frequently cited in discussions of the Carter decision and the evolution of Canadian assisted dying law.
Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu
Jean Truchon was a Quebec man, in his 40’s, living with cerebral palsy. He experienced severe and irreversible physical limitations that he found intolerable, but because his natural death was not considered “reasonably foreseeable,” he was ineligible for MAiD under Bill C-14.
Nicole Gladu was a 73 year old Quebec woman who contracted polio as a child and later developed post-polio syndrome, a progressive condition that caused worsening weakness, fatigue, chronic pain, and loss of function. Despite significant physical limitations, she had a successful career in communications and was known as a determined advocate for disability rights and personal autonomy.
In 2017, Truchon and Gladu challenged both the federal and Quebec MAiD laws. They argued that requiring a person’s natural death to be reasonably foreseeable violated their Charter rights and unfairly excluded competent adults who would otherwise meet all the eligibility criteria for a medically assisted death.
On September 11, 2019, the Quebec Superior Court ruled in Truchon v. Attorney General of Canada that the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” requirement in the federal law—and the similar “end-of-life” requirement in Quebec’s law—were unconstitutional.
That decision was not appealed by the federal government. Instead, Parliament responded with the passing of Bill C-7, which came into effect on March 17, 2021, creating the Track 1 and Track 2 MAiD framework used today.
Truchon received MAiD in April 2020, nearly a year before Bill C-7 came into effect as a result of a constitutional exemption granted by the court to both Truchon and Gladu. Gladu died in 2022, at the age of 76, as a result of progression of her disease.
Audrey Parker
Audrey Parker was a 57 year old, Nova Scotia woman with breast cancer that had metastasized to her bones and brain. She was approved for MAiD but, at that time, the law required that an individual be capable of providing consent immediately before the MAiD provision. Parker feared that if her cancer progressed and she lost decision-making capacity, she would lose access to MAiD altogether. As a result, she chose to receive MAiD earlier than she wanted, rather than risk becoming ineligible as a result of loss of capacity to give final consent.
In a public video message released shortly before her death, Parker said:
“I’m grateful to live in Canada, a country where I can choose my death. But the law has forced me to play a cruel game of chicken. I would like nothing more than to make it to Christmas, but if I become incompetent along the way, I will lose out on my choice of a beautiful, peaceful and, best of all, pain-free death.”
She urged the government to change the law so others would not face the same cruel choice.
Parker died on November 1, 2018. Her advocacy continued after her death and became a major influence on the development of Bill C-7. When Bill C-7 came into force on March 17, 2021, an amendment was created, often referred to as Audrey’s Amendment. This amendment created the waiver of final consent. It allows eligible Track 1 patients who are at risk of losing capacity before their chosen MAiD date to provide prior consent to receive MAiD.
The fight for choice continues
Gaye and Jim O’Neill
The British Columbia case, O’Neill v. British Columbia (Minister of Health), is challenging the practice of forced transfers for MAiD from faith-affiliated healthcare centres. The case arose from the very public experience of Sam O’Neill, a 34-year-old with metastatic cervical cancer. O’Neill had already been found eligible for MAiD prior to her March 2023 admission to St Paul’s Hospital, a catholic based hospital that does not permit MAiD within its facility. She had the legal right to receive MAiD yet she was required to leave St. Paul’s Hospital in order for that care to be provided.
O’Neill was experiencing severe and complex pain that was difficult to manage even with minimal movement. For someone in that condition, a transfer across the city was not a minor inconvenience—it’s a significant physical burden. O’Neill had to be sedated to tolerate the transfer, resulting in an inability for her to have meaningful final moments with her family.
“Our daughter suffered a brutal forced transfer, out of St. Paul’s Hospital, because the Providence Health Care MAiD policy - set by THE Arch Bishop - would not allow her to receive Medical Assistance in Dying in their Catholic run (but publicly funded) hospital
Her final hour was unbearably painful And for Jim and me, Sam’s parents, her siblings, other family & friends in attendance, it was also traumatic and unbearably cruel to witness” - Gaye O’Neill at a press conference in Vancouver, B.C.
As a result, her parents, Jim and Gaye O’Neill, have launched a Charter challenge alongside Dr. Jyothi Jayaraman and Dying With Dignity Canada. The challenge focuses on Section 2(a) of the Charter, which protects freedom of conscience and religion, including the right to hold one’s own beliefs and to be free from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them. It also engages Section 7, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
The hearing concluded before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in April 2026, and the parties now await a decision from Justice Ronald Skolrood.
We have had the privilege of getting to know the O’Neills both inside and outside the courtroom. They have spoken openly about their lives, the challenges of the past several years, and what they hope this Charter challenge might achieve. Regardless of the outcome, they remain committed to pursuing the case as far as necessary, including to the Supreme Court of Canada if required.
Claire Elyse Brosseau
Claire Elyse Brosseau is a 49-year-old Toronto woman who has become one of the most prominent public advocates for extending eligibility for MAiD to individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder.
Brosseau has publicly stated:
“I have been diagnosed with a severe form of bipolar I disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, among other mental disorders. Over the past three decades, I have tried a wide variety of medications and treatments for my mental illness. Despite these efforts, my mental illness just continues to get worse. I have reached the limit of my ability to live like this—in a state of unrelenting suffering.”
She argues that the categorical exclusion of individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder violates their Charter rights. She has also spoken openly about the suffering caused by repeated governmental delays to the implementation of MAiD for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition (MD-SUMC), which was originally scheduled to come into force in 2023, then delayed to 2024, and subsequently postponed until March 17, 2027.
As Brosseau explained:
“I have been waiting for over five years for the government to live up to its promise to lift the ban on MAiD for persons with mental illness as their only condition…. I want to be clear about what these delays mean for me personally. Every month of delay is another month of suffering that I am told I must simply endure. I have been asked, again and again, to be patient. I was patient for years. The government’s unwillingness to respond to my claim and live up to its promises has pushed me to my absolute limit.”
In August 2024, Brosseau launched a constitutional challenge alongside Dying With Dignity Canada and Dr. Patricia Smith. The applicants argue that the continued exclusion of people whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder from accessing MAiD violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently, Brosseau announced that she is seeking an urgent exemption from the current exclusion while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds through the courts.
Thank you
From the bottom of our hearts, we want to thank every one of these individuals who has courageously fought for access to an assisted death in such a public way. Your willingness to share your stories, your suffering, and your hopes, has changed the lives of people across this country. We would not be here today without you.
To the organizations that have advocated, and continue to advocate, for choice: we are profoundly grateful. Your compassion and persistence have helped make space for people to be heard, respected, and supported.
To the health care providers who support choice with such compassion, integrity, and commitment: you are extraordinary individuals. The care you provide often happens quietly, without recognition, but it matters deeply. We have been so fortunate to work alongside many of you, and we are continually moved by the kindness and dignity you bring to this work.
To every Canadian who has spoken openly about their lived experience of choosing MAiD, or of supporting a loved one through MAiD: thank you for your bravery and honesty. These are not easy stories to tell, but by telling them, you have helped others feel less alone.
And finally, to every patient and loved one we have professionally supported through MAiD: it has been an honour to be trusted with even a small part of your journey. We carry those experiences with us, always.
Another terrific article! It is great to have a historical record of such courageous trailblazers. As a U.S. citizen from Minnesota, I have been following the unfair backlash against Canada’s existing MAID laws. Yours was the first article I read this morning before even getting out of bed. The second article, still in bed, was from the organization Death with Dignity, announcing the U.S. religious right is trying to undo what few U.S. states have legalized MAiD by launching a massive litigation strategy. The far-right group’s goal is to take MAiD to the U.S. Supreme Court. And, you all know what the U.S. Supreme Court did to our abortion rights. Feel free to visit my new website, where I discuss some of the key differences (and similarities) in U.S. and Canadian laws and language. See usmaid.org
An informative, clearly-written and thoughtful article. Thank you.