In a recent B.C. Supreme Court hearing, a palliative care physician from Vancouver testified that she opted to resign rather than approve patient transfers for medical assistance in dying (MAID). Dr. Jyothi Jayaraman, along with two other plaintiffs, is challenging the constitutionality of publicly funded, faith-based health-care facilities that prohibit MAID within their premises.
Dr. Jayaraman stated in her affidavit that she stepped down from her role in early 2023 at two Vancouver hospices due to the impending transfer of one facility to Providence Health Care. Providence, a defendant in the case, does not permit MAID in its establishments due to the Catholic church’s stance against euthanasia. This policy meant that Dr. Jayaraman could no longer offer MAID to patients in their rooms and was compelled to authorize transfers based on the facility’s religious beliefs.
Having administered MAID to 44 patients who subsequently had to move to other facilities for the procedure, Dr. Jayaraman highlighted the distressing impact of forced transfers on patients’ physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being in her affidavit. She emphasized the added suffering caused by not being able to provide MAID at the bedside when it could alleviate a person’s pain.
During cross-examination, a lawyer representing Vancouver Coastal Health pointed out that the health authority has designated adjacent spaces for MAID provision near hospitals and hospices operated by Providence, which are managed by Vancouver Coastal Health. Despite this accommodation, Dr. Jayaraman argued that anything short of patients receiving MAID at a faith-based facility would violate her moral and ethical beliefs, indicating her uncompromising stance on the matter.
In her affidavit, Dr. Jayaraman emphasized that even transfers to adjacent spaces can disrupt the peaceful final moments of a patient’s life, which should ideally be spent in a serene and sacred environment. The Province of British Columbia, Providence Health Care, and Vancouver Coastal Health are all defendants in this case, with the plaintiffs expected to conclude their arguments soon, followed by the defense presenting its evidence.