Different MAiD Laws, Different MAiD Outcomes: Expected Rather Than “Disturbing”

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

This article refers to:

Slowing the Slide Down the Slippery Slope of Medical Assistance in Dying: Mutual Learnings for Canada and the US

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 We will not engage in a discussion of whether medically-assisted dying should be legal or whether or how the law should change, but we note that the author’s clear opposition to medically-assisted dying may be affecting the choice of cases and comparative analysis. Indeed, the author uses the word “suicide” to describe the individual who dies with medical assistance and refers to the act of healthcare providers’ participation in euthanasia as “homicide.” The author also calls the rate from medically-assisted dying in Canada “disturbing” multiple times and praises California as “successful” for its very low rate of medically-assisted deaths. But differences in rates are just that—differences. It is unclear how the difference is disturbing without more explicit context, reasoning, and justification. It appears to us that Pullman thinks that the baseline acceptable rate of MAiD is near zero. Support for our inference of Pullman’s view are Pullman’s references to specific instances of medically-assisted dying as “troubling” and claims that the autonomy rationale for medically-assisted dying is “suspect,” medically-assisted dying is a “first-line option” to relieve suffering, and that individuals thinking about their deaths are “clearly vulnerable.” None of these labels or claims are justified by the author in the text of this article and are instead conclusory.

2 The law states that “a health care entity may prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including health care providers, from participating [in MAiD] while on premises owned or under the management or direct control of that health care entity or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the entity.” § 443.15(a).

3 It is unsurprising that MAiD rates would be higher in Canada than California given the latter’s restricted eligibility through the terminal illness requirement.

4 We view end-of-life laws that satisfy patient preferences as the appropriate criteria of whether a particular MAiD law is “successful” unlike Pullman (2023) who seemingly views “success” as very low rates of MAiD that never increase.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.