On October 27, the federal government tabled Bill C-41, the “MAID Safeguards Act.” There is a silver lining – this bill would halt the scheduled (for March 2027) expansion of euthanasia that would have permitted it for people with mental illness alone. It is, in part, a response to a Parliamentary committee recommendation in June 2026 which urged the government to cancel the legalization of euthanasia for mental illness.
But the dark cloud to Bill C-41 is that the bulk of it is about legalizing “advance requests” for euthanasia in any province or territory that creates a framework for handling such requests.
Quebec has permitted such advance euthanasia requests since late 2024, even though doing so is in violation of the Criminal Code. In contrast, earlier this year Alberta explicitly prohibited advance euthanasia requests.
With Bill C-41, the federal government is avoiding responsibility for deciding a life-and-death matter (the circumstances in which homicide is permitted) by shifting it to the provinces.
Advance euthanasia requests are for people diagnosed with dementia, Alzheimer’s, or another illness that will cause them to lose decision-making capacity. In an advance request, a person outlines the conditions they think would make them want to die in the future when their illness would prevent them from being able to consent to being killed. For example, someone may think he will want to die when he can no longer feed himself or when he can no longer recognize loved ones.
Ultimately, allowing advance euthanasia requests permits euthanasia without consent. Bill C-41 includes attempted “safeguards” that clarify that a doctor cannot euthanize a patient if they demonstrate refusal or resistance. But their patient is “consenting” in advance to being killed under circumstances he has never experienced. Then, when he is unable to consent, his doctor must determine when the conditions outlined are present and then decide when the patient is “suffering intolerably.” So, really, it’s his doctor deciding, and not the patient consenting.
The doctor will need to determine whether the patient is demonstrating refusal or resistance, but a person who has lost mental ability may not even know what is happening when the doctor begins the euthanasia process. And the legislation includes no requirement for the doctor to try to make the patient aware that they are about to be killed.
The government is committed to stopping euthanasia for mental illness because it cannot be done “safely.” But despite serious ethical and practical problems with implementing advance requests, there is no discussion of “safety” for patients who will be killed without their consent.
Of course, this is just the latest step in Canada’s slippery euthanasia slope. Once a country equates murder with medicine, justifying as mercy the killing of the ill and disabled, it has already lost the concept of true human dignity and the image of God (Gen. 1:27). As a consequence, more groups of people are placed in the category of “life not worth living.”
Daniel Zekveld is a Policy Analyst with the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada