Hello. My name is Alicia Duncan, and I am here today in memory of my mother, Donna Duncan.
I first appeared before this committee in 2022. As someone who is not philosophically opposed to assisted dying, I believed that if Parliament understood what happened to my mother, there would be change. There hasn't been. AMAD has recognized that this issue turns on readiness, oversight, standards and review. The circumstances surrounding my mother's death demonstrate that Canada is not ready to expand MAID for mental illness as a sole underlying condition.
My mother's death demonstrated these three things: One, families cannot reliably intervene to stop a MAID death in real time, even in a clear crisis. Two, after death, there is no effective pathway to determine whether the law was followed. Three, oversight in this system, therefore, is not verifiable in practice.
My mother died through Canada's MAID regime on October 29, 2021, only hours after being released from a psychiatric unit following a suicide attempt. She had experienced a significant decline following a concussion. She was psychiatrically unstable, deeply hopeless and physically deteriorating. Our family did not deny that she was suffering. We questioned whether death should have been accepted as the answer in the midst of that crisis.
When she told us she had scheduled her death in less than two days, we brought an emergency application before a provincial judge, who granted a warrant for her apprehension under the Mental Health Act temporarily stopping the provision. With her consent, we then spoke directly with the head of the MAID coordination centre, who was also one of her assessors, and raised concerns that she was in an active mental health crisis. That concern was confirmed when she attempted suicide, yet hours after being released from psychiatric care, she was euthanized.
Proponents of psychiatric euthanasia frame my mother's case as an outlier. It is not. Since her death, I have connected with many families across this country who have experienced similar circumstances and are now living with the devastating effects of PTSD, conditions that, under an expanded regime, could themselves become grounds for MAID.
In my mother's case, disordered eating and severe caloric restriction contributed to her physical decline and were treated as evidence that her death was near. In effect, the current system allows eligibility for MAID to be shaped not only by illness, but also by behaviour rooted in distress, including self-imposed physical conditions.
After my mother's death, the second failure became clear. We pursued regulators, police and the Privacy Commissioner to determine whether the law had been followed. A police investigation was opened but could not proceed because officers could not access her MAID assessment records. Requests for disclosure, including under public interest provisions, were refused. Most recently, I requested her records under public interest override of B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That request was again denied.
I would ask this: What greater public interest exists than determining whether a state-authorized death was carried out in compliance with the law? The only person legally entitled to access the records that would answer that question is my mother, and she is dead.
There is no governing body in this country, criminal, civil or regulatory, that seems willing to reliably determine whether a MAID death complied with the law after it has occurred. Accountability is effectively shifted onto families and executors, who cannot access the information required to pursue it. Public bodies defer to one another. Health authorities resist disclosure, and civil action carries significant financial risk for families. The absence of a negligent finding is often cited as evidence that the system is working. It is not. It reflects a system that cannot be meaningfully examined.
It is within that system that Parliament is now being asked to expand eligibility. When I hear that Canada is ready for expansion, I do not understand how that conclusion is reached. My mother's case has been examined in courts, media and public policy discussions. If a case like hers does not raise fundamental concerns about how the system operates, it is unclear what would.
Nothing fundamental has changed since 2022. Canadians still lack timely access to psychiatric care, trauma care and meaningful recovery supports. We are preparing to authorize psychiatric euthanasia within a system that lacks transparency, meaningful oversight and any reliable way to verify whether the law is being followed.
When MAID is provided in error, the consequence is irreversible. If Canada cannot account for the deaths it has already approved, it is not ready to expand eligibility to mental illness as a sole condition. We are not ready.
Thank you.