(LifeSiteNews) — In December, a Vancouver man who “overtly and repeatedly stated that he was planning to kill his 77-year-old wife” had his power to make medical decisions on her behalf removed by a British Columbian judge. The elderly woman suffers from Alzheimer’s and resides in a care home. According to CTV, the judge referred in his orders to “the husband’s ‘death plan,’ which he framed as an alternative to medical assistance in dying and referred to as a ‘dignicide.’”
The husband, referred to in court documents as T.W., used the language of euthanasia to justify his plan to murder his wife, after which he intended to commit suicide. Double euthanasia, especially among husband and wife couples, have become trendy over the past several years; after one recent case, the BBC warned: “These are complex cases made even more so if one of the partners has dementia, where there can be uncertainty about their capacity to give consent.”
“The issue in this petition is whether the (health authority) should be granted declaratory relief and orders to enable it to provide protection to a vulnerable woman against the likelihood of death at the hands of her husband,” stated Justice Bradford F. Smith’s decision. The woman, referred to as E.W., was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2017 and was deemed ineligible for euthanasia in 2021. Her husband hoped to do the deed himself.
“T.W. is a strong advocate for MAID and has expressed to various persons that if he and E.W. are eligible for MAID they intend to receive it. T.W. has also overtly and repeatedly informed family, friends and Island Health personnel that if E.W. becomes ineligible for MAID, he intends to end her life and then take his own life,” stated the decision.
“E.W. never expressed agreement with the death plan. On the contrary, E.W. was understandably upset by it. E.W. expressed to (the couple’s daughter) that T.W. was trying to kill her.” T.W. was open about his plans, and health-care workers “noted apparent preparations underway which included ‘paying for funeral services and grave sites; selling assets and distributing the proceeds; preparing obituaries; and creating memorabilia as part of their collective legacy.’” E.W. is now under the care of the health authority.
READ: Infamous euthanasia doctor ends life of young man who was previously saved
“Since arriving at the [long-term care] facility, E.W. has settled in well there and believes it is her home. She is comfortable, calm, and does not experience any distress when T.W. is not present,” the decision said. “She thrives in a low-stimulation environment. She interacts with the other residents and is generally able to navigate to her own room.”
CTV reported: “Had the health authority not succeeded in court, a temporary order giving Island Health the power to keep E.W. in the facility without her husband’s consent would have expired, paving the way for T.W. to take her home.” He had sought to isolate her; the decision noted that: “Facility staff have observed T.W. telling E.W. that they no longer have a daughter, or that their daughter has ruined their marriage and their lives, and that E.W. should refuse to see her.” T.W. monitored her every move, and sought to control every aspect of her life, remaining with her when visitors were present.
The judge noted that T.W. was accusing the long-term care facility of wrongfully “jailing” his wife and engaging in “elder abuse,” and despite a publication ban, openly disseminated his wife’s medical information. Island Health’s court win allows them to protect E.W.
“In general, as a designated agency under the Adult Guardianship Act, Island Health works to fulfill its obligations concerning the protection of vulnerable adults from abuse and neglect. This can include court proceedings,” a spokesperson wrote to CTV in an email. “Island Health is pleased with the court’s decision.”
But University of British Columbia law professor Isabel Grant noted that aspects of the decision should raise alarm bells. The judge, in his decision, cited T.W.’s “death plan” as “contrary to the Code provisions governing medical assistance in dying.”
“[T.W.] is talking about murdering a disabled woman who does not have the ability to protect herself,” Grant said. “The death plan is contrary to our murder laws. And I think it’s really important not to have us talk about the murder of elderly people as some slightly improper form of MAID. That’s not what it is. It’s murder. Just because she has a disability does not transform this into something else. This case demonstrates how our MAID regime has normalized death as a response to disability for the elderly.”
Grant also asked why authorities did not move to protect E.W. earlier, considering how open T.W. had been about his plans to kill her. According to CTV:
In that context, Grant said the repeated references to T.W. advocating for MAID for his wife, his apparent attempts to find a way consent to it on her behalf, and his plan to kill her if MAID was not available are particularly troubling. Cases like this one, with a stark power imbalance and troubling pattern of coercively controlling behaviour highlight the risks of the MAID regime in the context of intimate partner violence and coercive control which puts overwhelmingly disabled women at risk, according to Grant.
“He’s describing the planned and deliberate murder of his wife,” she said. “There is no indication that E.W., even when capable, wanted her life to be ended. To the contrary she has expressed fear of this ‘death plan.’ He has made the judgment for her, and it is not his to make.” The normalization of euthanasia—and the Orwellian acronym “MAiD”—has desensitized us to the killing of the elderly, vulnerable, and disabled. In this case, E.W. received protection. But even that welcome decision gave a dire warning about what Canada has become.
