Medical aid in dying in Canada doesn't require a terminal diagnosis--should it?

 Repugnance to medical aid in dying is sharpest when death isn't otherwise imminent.  Canada allows patients with irremediable pain to qualify for MAID (qualifying in this way is called Track 2).  Here's a thoughtful article in the NYT about some of the issues.

Do Patients Without a Terminal Illness Have the Right to Die?
Paula Ritchie wasn’t dying, but under Canada’s new rules, she qualified for a medically assisted death. Was that kindness or cruelty?   By Katie Engelhart 

"While a Track 1 patient could technically apply for and receive MAID within a day, the process for Track 2 was slower; there had to be at least 90 days from the start of the assessment to the patient’s death. Each patient was assessed by two independent clinicians, and if neither of the assessing clinicians had expertise in the patient’s medical condition, they had to consult with a clinician who did. The patient requesting assisted death also had to be informed of “the reasonable and available means” to relieve the suffering — and to give “serious consideration” to those means.

"By law, a MAID patient had to be suffering in some way. The suffering could come either directly from the medical condition or indirectly from the condition’s follow-on effects. It could be either physical or psychological, as long as it was “enduring.” The law did not define exactly what it meant to suffer, or exactly how a medical professional was meant to evaluate the suffering. It was up to individual clinicians to figure out, in conversation with their patients. In a “Model Practice Standard” published by Health Canada, the country’s federal health regulator, MAID assessors were instructed to “respect the subjectivity of suffering.”

"For other clinicians, the concern about Track 2 was more philosophical. Dr. Madeline Li, a cancer psychiatrist who developed the MAID program for Toronto’s University Health Network and who has personally overseen hundreds of Track 1 patients, told me that she was hesitant to involve herself in Track 2 because it didn’t fit with her larger understanding of medicine and its purpose. “If you want to allow people to end their lives when they want to, then put suicide kits in hardware stores, right?” Li told me. It was not “assistance in dying” if the patient was not actually dying.

...

"The most organized critique of Canada’s law came from disability rights advocates. In September 2024, two people with disabilities and several nonprofit organizations announced a legal challenge to Bill C-7. Their case argues that, by definition, all Track 2 MAID patients are disabled — people with medical conditions that limit daily functioning — and thus, that the law is discriminatory. If a nondisabled person is suffering and wants to die, her desire will be understood as pathological, and she will be offered suicide prevention. If a disabled person is suffering and wants to die, her doctor will hand her the proverbial gun.

...

“I’m certainly not going to argue that the system is in good shape,” Wonnacott said. He tended to receive criticism of MAID with equanimity. Of course the system was broken. Of course people ended up on the wrong side of it. And of course the government should work urgently to improve it. But then again, it was the system. There was no other system on offer. “And to force people to continue suffering as we wait an indefinite amount of time to fix it is unfair.” Sure, in any given MAID assessment, Wonnacott could allow himself to get caught up in the past conditional of what should have been done, what could have been. But there was the suffering patient sitting in front of him, here and now, wanting an answer.

"Wonnacott also disagreed with the solution that the critics offered: to shut it all down. Fundamentally, he didn’t think the best way to protect poor and marginalized patients was to force them to stay alive, because in some counterfactual version of events, in which the world was a better and more just place, they might have chosen differently. That wasn’t how anything in medicine worked; a doctor always treated the patient as she was. How could it be otherwise? If only those who were rich or well connected were recognized to have autonomy and allowed to choose?

...

"The critics seemed to imply that a few hundred Track 2 deaths each year were, together, taking the pressure off government officials to improve the system. And that, inversely, if enough people who wanted to die were instead forced to live, their suffering would create the moral imperative for a wide-reaching social-welfare revolution. Wonnacott and his colleagues thought this seemed unlikely. As it was, Canada had more publicly funded health care than many other countries."