Assisted death advocates hope to end faith-based hospital exemptions in BC

A Charter challenge in British Columbia (B.C), Canada, is poised to determine whether religiously-affiliated hospitals will be allowed to continue to decline participation in the nation's "medical assistance in dying" program (MAiD).

Pro-life advocates say forcing these hospitals to participate in killing patients against their religious and conscience beliefs would undermine conscience rights and further normalize ending vulnerable lives instead of providing proper treatment and care.

Key Takeaways:

• Plaintiffs are seeking to undo rules in British Columbia that allow faith-based hospitals to opt-out of providing assisted death, instead requiring transfer to a willing institution.

• The Plaintiffs claim B.C.'s Charter guarantees individuals the right to obtain MAiD, and that the conscience and religious rights of publicly-funded, faith-based hospitals should not affect a patient's request to be killed.

• Faith-based hospitals argue that the Charter protects their religious rights, and that they believe in treating every human with dignity from conception to natural death.

• If the Plaintiffs win, religious hospitals could be forced to choose between actively killing patients (against their pro-life convictions), or withdrawing from offering publicly-funded care.

The Details:

The case before the B.C. Supreme Court seeks to change provincial rules that presently permit faith-based hospitals, including Catholic-run Providence Health Care, to decline participation helping patients to end their own lives through MAiD on their premises, despite ensuring that patients can be transported elsewhere for MAiD. 

According to various media outlets including The Albertan, Providence is “a Catholic organization that operates 18 health and long-term care facilities in Vancouver.”

Pro-MAiD group Dying With Dignity Canada and several co-plaintiffs who champion assisted suicide have alleged that existing provincial rules breach the Charter rights of patients seeking MAiD, claiming that institutional religious convictions should not hinder a patient's request for death. 

Plaintiffs portray conscience protections as discriminatory

“This case highlights the harm caused when patients are forced to leave the care settings they know and trust in order to receive medical assistance in dying,” declared Dying With Dignity Canada's CEO, Helen Long.

Plaintiffs include Gaye and Jim O’Neill, the parents of 34-year-old Sam O’Neill, who was taken from St. Paul’s Hospital in April 2023 to another facility for MAiD. The O’Neills contend that their daughter experienced severe pain during the transfer, and in their court complaint, they allege the transfer deprived Sam’s loved ones of the chance to say their final goodbyes.

B.C.’s current policy states that publicly funded faith-based facilities do not have to offer MAiD, but they must permit evaluation and then arrange transfers to other sites willing to carry it out. Plaintiffs like the O’Neills have alleged that forcing transfers is discriminatory, demanding that assisted suicide and euthanasia be treated as medical services and made available in every taxpayer-funded hospital bed.

“There was no medical reason for relocating her,” Gaye O’Neill said, adding that the family thinks the transfer breached Sam’s Charter rights. 

Pro-euthanasia advocates are using the story of the O’Neills to pressure the B.C. Supreme Court to remove the conscience rights of religious institutions, portraying those rights as a source of harm rather than a safeguard for human life and moral integrity.

Requiring killing to receive funding

On its end, Providence Health Care operates numerous hospitals and long-term care homes in Vancouver and has long upheld policies premised on Catholic teaching, which bans direct participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The organization has maintained that public dollars should not become a tool to force participation in intentional killing, particularly in places established precisely to serve the sick, the elderly and the dying.

The Albertan reported:

Providence Health argues in its statement of defence that Section 2 of the Charter shields it from being "compelled to provide services that are contrary to deeply and sincerely held beliefs" and that its decision not to provide MAID is not subject to the Charter.

"The state has a fundamental duty under the Charter to not simply respect fundamental freedoms like freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, but to uphold it and to defend it," [Cardus director Rev. Dr. Andrew ]Bennett said.

Why It Matters:

Canada may soon find itself at odds with the Catholic faith and with those medical professionals who adhere to it. A choice must be made: will it eventually force religious institutions to be complicit in terminating life via assisted suicide, or will it continue to permit institutions devoted to caring for every patient until natural death to opt out of assisted suicide?

The B.C. Charter challenge appears less like a request for “access” and more like an attempt to eradicate faith-based institutions that provide medical services from the public domain. If plaintiffs win the court case, religious hospitals could face a tough choice: actively kill patients on-site (betraying their pro-life convictions), or withdraw from offering publicly-funded care altogether. The latter would leave fewer resources and options for patients who want end-of-life care that doesn't include assisted suicide. 

The case comes in wake of pro-life worries over the pace and scope of MAiD expansion in Canada, where eligibility has widened far beyond the original guarantee of rare cases near the end of life.

The Bottom Line:

Mandating religious hospitals to offer MAiD would perpetuate the idea that some people are liabilities for whom death is the “responsible” choice. Providing excellent palliative care to patients instead of abandoning them to a system that increasingly offers death as an answer to human sickness and frailty would be the best solution forward.