A story is emerging from British Columbia that should chill the blood of anyone paying attention to the assisted dying debate. Sources confirm a woman with a history of severe mental illness has submitted a formal request for medically assisted death under Canada’s expanded eligibility criteria. Her case, now being studied by UK legislators, is being weaponised by both sides of the ‘safe death’ argument. And the bodies are already piling up.
Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program, once reserved for the terminally ill, was broadened in 2021 to include those suffering from ‘grievous and irremediable’ conditions. The woman in question, whose identity is protected under privacy laws, reportedly suffers from treatment-resistant depression and a personality disorder. Her application has been approved following a mandatory 90-day assessment period. She is expected to die within weeks.
The UK’s own assisted dying bill, currently under review in Westminster, has taken note. Campaigned for by those who believe in ‘choice and dignity’, the proposed law would allow terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to end their lives with medical assistance. But the Canadian precedent raises a terrifying question: what happens when ‘choice’ becomes a trap for the vulnerable?
Internal documents obtained by this newsletter show that UK advocates have cited Canada’s model as a ‘progressive template’. Yet the bodies tell a different story. In 2022, over 13,000 Canadians died by MAiD, a 31% increase year on year. Among them were people with chronic pain, paralysis, and yes, mental illness. The woman in question is not the first and will not be the last.
Critics say the Canadian system has become a ‘death factory’ for the poor, the isolated, and the mentally ill. They point to cases where individuals lacking affordable housing or adequate mental health support have opted for death over a life of suffering. Is that a ‘choice’ or a systemic failure?
UK MP David Jones, who opposes the bill, called the Canadian case a ‘grotesque experiment in social euthanasia’. He warned that without robust safeguards, vulnerable people would ‘vote with their feet’ and choose death over a broken welfare system. But supporters of the bill argue that denying the terminally ill a dignified death is cruelty. They point to polling showing 73% of Britons support legalising assisted dying.
What no one is discussing is the accountant’s bottom line. Assisted dying saves the state money. Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that MAiD could save the healthcare system up to $150 million annually. When you follow the money, you find the bodies.
This case is a watershed. It pits the right to die against the duty to protect. It asks whether a society can offer both a ‘safe death’ and a ‘life worth living’. For the woman in British Columbia, the debate is irrelevant. Her date with a doctor is set. But for the rest of us, the question remains: whose death is it anyway?
The UK’s proposed legislation currently excludes mental illness. But the Canadian experience shows that boundaries blur. The pressure to expand will come. And when it does, the most vulnerable will be the first to go.
We are watching a moral collapse in real time. The woman’s choice is her own, but the system that made it possible bears the guilt. As the UK reviews its laws, it should look to Canada and see not progress, but a warning. Because when death becomes a solution for suffering, everyone loses.
