Canada tweaks its Medical Aid in Dying law

 Canada has reversed its plan to expand access to medical aid in dying to people with only psychiatric illnesses, after a long controversy (now characterized as a  lack of "perfect consensus." But Canada has expanded access to allow those with progressive diseases to make advanced commitments, ahead of the day when they no longer may be capable of consent.

Canada Halts Plan to Allow Medically Assisted Death for the Mentally Ill.  People who have mental illness alone will not qualify for assisted death, but patients who have other conditions and expect to have a cognitive decline can make an advanced request.  By Vjosa Isai

"Canada will reverse its plan to allow people whose sole condition is a mental illness to seek medically assisted death, the government announced on Wednesday, abandoning a move to expand access to these patients.

“While there is not a perfect consensus on this issue, we believe this is the correct approach,” Sean Fraser, the minister of justice, told reporters on Parliament Hill.

"A law, introduced under the former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that allowed people with intolerable suffering from incurable mental health conditions to access a medically assisted death was initially poised to take effect in March 2023. Access for these patients was postponed for a year after public and some medical-community concerns that the existing system was not yet prepared to evaluate applications from these patients. In March 2024, the government delayed again, this time until March 2027, pending reviews by a panel of experts.

"With the clock ticking toward that deadline, Mr. Fraser said the government “very recently” formalized its stance and that Canadians can soon expect parliament to pass legislation that will indefinitely bar people whose sole medical condition is a mental disorder from seeking medically assisted death.

"The government is broadening the law to allow people with serious illnesses to make advance requests for medically assisted death if they anticipate their cognitive health will decline in a way that would prevent them from providing consent for the procedure in the future. This is already available to patients in the province of Quebec. The ability to make an advance request for assisted death has considerable public support."

Medical aid in dying: the continuing debate in England

In June, the British Parliament passed a law to permit medical aid in dying, which still needs further action before going into effect.

  The Guardian looks at the harrowing situations facing some proponents of MAID:

‘Bad deaths scar families for ever’: what terminally ill people want you to know about assisted dying

Here's the backstory:

From 20 Jun 2025

MPs vote to accept assisted dying bill

"MPs have voted to accept the assisted dying bill, with 314 votes in favour to 291 against, a majority of 23.

The bill will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny".

New York State senate passes medical aid in dying bill

 Yesterday the NY State Senate took the next step in making medical aid in dying legal in NY.  Now the bill goes to the governor...

The NYT has the story:

New York Moves to Allow Terminally Ill People to Die on Their Own Terms
A bill permitting so-called medical aid in dying passed the State Legislature and will now head to Gov. Kathy Hochul for her signature. by Grace Ashford

"Eleven states and the District of Columbia have passed laws permitting so-called medical aid in dying. The practice is also available in several European countries and in Canada, which recently broadened its criteria to extend the option to people with incurable chronic illnesses and disabilities.

The bill in New York is written more narrowly and would apply only to people who have an incurable and irreversible illness, with six months or less to live. Proponents say that distinction is key.

“It isn’t about ending a person’s life, but shortening their death,” said State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat and one of the sponsors of the bill. It passed on Monday night by a vote of 35 to 27, mostly along partisan lines.

...

"The bill was first introduced a decade ago by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, a Westchester Democrat who leads the body’s Health Committee, at a time when few states were considering such measures.

...

"The bill has earned the support of a range of powerful interest and advocacy groups, including the New York State Bar Association, the New York State Psychiatric Association, the Medical Society of the State of New York and the New York Civil Liberties Union.

"While it was also backed by some religious groups, including Congregation B’nai Yisrael, a Westchester synagogue, and Catholics Vote Common Good, it was staunchly opposed by the New York State Catholic Conference."

Medical aid in dying bill advances (controversially) in New York State

 A bill to legalize Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) in New York state has passed the Assembly and been referred to the Senate (after which it would go to the Governor for signature).  It's controversial, so I don't have a good sense of whether it will become law.

Here's the text of the bill itself, on the NY State Assembley page: "Medical Aid in Dying Act"

Here's a well written article summarizing the controversy, and ultimately opposing the bill in its present form.

Will New York Soon Make It Too Easy to Die?   By Madeleine Kearns

"In April, New York’s “Medical Aid in Dying Act” passed the state assembly by a vote of 81 to 67. It has until the end of the legislative session—June 12—to face a vote in the Senate. On Thursday, June 5, Senate majority leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said she believed there were enough votes for the legislation to pass and “it is likely that it will come to the floor.” Perhaps as soon as Monday, June 9.

If the legislation passes, New York would join the 11 other states that have legalized assisted dying in various forms. (It is also legal in the District of Columbia.) For those who have seen difficult deaths or are daunted by the prospect, the kind of death Nancy describes—peaceful and pain-free—is what they are hoping the law will all but guarantee.

But those opposed to assisted suicide—their preferred term—warn that such laws endanger the vulnerable by reshaping social norms so that, for some, the right to die becomes a duty to die. Moreover, New York’s legislation, they argue, is on the “outer edge” of liberalization, eliminating safeguards that exist in other states where medical aid in dying (MAID) is legal."

Harvard's lawsuit against the Trump administration

 Read it and weep for our country:

"7. Defendants’ actions are unlawful. The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 741 (2024), nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech,” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (citation omitted). The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.” Asociacion de Educacion Privada de P.R., Inc. v. Garcia-Padilla, 490 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007). A threat such as this to a university’s academic freedom strikes an equal blow to the research conducted and resulting advancements made on its campus.
8. The Government’s actions flout not just the First Amendment, but also federal laws
and regulations. The Government has expressly invoked the protections against discrimination
contained in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a basis for its actions. Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus. But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance. Moreover, Congress in Title VI set forth detailed procedures that the Government “shall” satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. Those procedures effectuate Congress’s desire that “termination of or refusal to grant or to continue” federal financial assistance be a remedy of last resort. Id. The Government made no effort to follow those procedures—nor the procedures provided for in Defendants’ own agency regulations—before freezing Harvard’s federal funding.
9. These fatal procedural shortcomings are compounded by the arbitrary and
capricious nature of Defendants’ abrupt and indiscriminate decision..."