About that Autistic Canadian Woman Approved for MAiD

Inside the WV v. MV case

Back in the spring of 2024, a rash of sensational news articles hit the internet about the latest MAiD scandal coming out of Canada: a judge had just allowed an autistic woman’s MAiD to go ahead. The headlines were predictable: Calgary judge rules woman with autism can seek Medical Assistance in Dying, Calgary judge rules 27-year-old can go ahead with MAID death despite father’s concerns.

These sensationalized descriptions do not tell the full story. The case was both much more benign and much more sinister than the surface-level analyses made it sound.

Tl;dr: This was a medical privacy case. The woman was not seeking MAiD because of her autism; she had some other physical illness under which she applied for MAiD, which she did not want to disclose to her family. Given that her autism did not include any intellectual impairment, she was ruled as competent to make her own medical decisions, and was not required to disclose her diagnosis.

Background

The case in question is WV v. MV in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, before the Honorable Justice Colin Feasby.

A 27-year-old woman in Calgary, identified only as “MV” in the court documents to protect her identity, was approved for MAiD in late 2023. Her father, “WV,” sued to stop her. He named Alberta Health Services (AHS), his daughter, and two other individuals as defendants in the lawsuit.

The father’s suit alleges three things:

1. Alberta Health Services did not follow the statutory MAiD process in how they assigned one of their assessing doctors to his daughter’s case.

2. His daughter has nothing physically wrong with her, so AHS’s approval of her MAiD is invalid.

3. Due to his daughter’s autism diagnosis, she is not competent to make her own medical decisions.

The father was seeking judicial review into AHS’s MAiD process, including any communications within AHS that went into their decision to assign the assessors that they did. Separately, he argued that his daughter physically has nothing wrong with her and that her symptoms are all psychological. Since MAiD is not allowed solely for psychological conditions, her application is invalid. He also filed to put his daughter under a guardianship and revoke her right to make her own medical decisions.

In response, the daughter asserted her right to medical privacy. She provided documentation showing her MAiD approval, but otherwise did not disclose her diagnosis to the court.

The Issues

AHS’s MAiD Process

In Canada, when a patient requests MAiD, two separate clinicians must assess the patient and approve the request. If one doctor says yes, but the other says no, then a third tie-breaker assessor can be called in. If the tie-breaker says no, then the MAiD request is denied; if yes, then the request is approved.

The Canadian Criminal Code section 241(2) is the statue that describes the process that clinicians must follow in order to administer MAiD legally. Subsection 241.2(6)(c) specifies that assessors must be “independent” and impartial regarding the patient. For example, they must not stand to gain from the MAiD recipient’s death, they must not be unduly biased, and so on.

The father’s suit argues that one of MV’s assessors, identified in the record as “Dr. P,” was not truly “independent” as required by law.

MV, the daughter, actually requested MAiD twice. During this first request, one assessor said no, and the other said yes. She did not ask for a tie-breaker, and accepted the denial. It is not known when this happened, or how much time passed between the first and second request.

The assessor who approved her the first time was Dr. P.

When she went through the MAiD process for the second time in 2023, AHS assigned two new doctors to assess her. Again, one said no, and the other said yes. This time she requested a tie-breaker, and AHS assigned... Dr. P, who once again approved her.

The father’s suit argues that Dr. P was not “independent” because he had already approved her the first time. The father accused AHS of assigning Dr. P to the case on purpose, knowing ahead of time that he was going to approve MV for MAiD.

MV’s Diagnosis and Medical Privacy

Another part of the father’s suit argued that MV could not have possibly had a physical diagnosis “that he was aware of.” He insisted that her physical symptoms—”to the extent that she has any”—were all in her head. Since MAiD is not allowed solely for mental illness in Canada, then her MAiD approval must be invalid.

At the time of this case, only physical illnesses qualify someone for MAiD in Canada. There are plans to allow MAiD solely on the basis of psychiatric conditions in 2027, but that date keeps getting pushed back.

The daughter, in response, asserted her right to medical privacy. She was not seeking MAiD specifically because of her autism. She had an unrelated physical illness, which she did not want to disclose to her family. (Autistic people get sick too, you know.) She provided documentation that she had been approved for MAiD by two assessing clinicians, but did not disclose her diagnosis.

MV’s Autism

The father provided medical records describing the daughter’s 2016 autism diagnosis (at age ~20):

MV was diagnosed on February 25, 2016 with autism spectrum disorder. Her doctor indicated in his diagnosis that she did not have any associated intellectual development or speech disorder. However, he specified that she suffered from the following associated behavioural disorders:

Level I Social Communication Disorder Severity – Supports Needed

Level II Restrictive-Repetitive Behaviour Severity – Substantial Supports Needed

Like the United States, Canada follows the DSM-V for Autism Spectrum Disorder. “Level I” requires the least amount of support needs, while Level III has the highest. From this description, MV had no intellectual or speech impairment, the least-severe form of social impairment, and moderate repetitive behavior and need for routine.

Her parents had never before made any moves to put her under a guardianship. In fact, she wasn’t even diagnosed with autism until she was about 20—well after the age of majority.

The Ruling

Since MV was 27 years old, had never been placed under a guardianship, and whose autism diagnosis did not include any intellectual delays, Justice Feasby determined that she had the capacity to make her own medical decisions.

The father did not follow the correct process for putting an adult child under a medical guardianship with this lawsuit. Justice Feasby pulled no punches regarding the father’s attempt:

WV’s second affidavit states that it is made in support of a “Guardianship Application.” No guardianship application has been filed with the Court. Counsel for WV advised that a guardianship application had been sent for filing with the Court but that it was rejected by the clerks. Counsel advised that WV is still contemplating a guardianship application. [...]

WV calls himself a de facto guardian of MV. But he is not her legal guardian. From the time that she turned 18 nearly a decade ago until now, [he] had the opportunity to make an application [...] to become MV’s co-decision-maker or legal guardian but did not do so. [...] [If he had applied,] he could have laid to rest, one way or the other, any questions of MV’s capacity[.]

He partially ruled in favor of the father regarding the AHS probe. Under Canadian law, medical decisions are not justiciable—that is, the court will show deference to clinicians. For further reading on what “not justiciable” means in Canadian law, see this post:

What does it mean for medical decisions to not be justiciable in Canadian law?

Justice Feasby could have issued a court order for the medical records, but the father did not have standing. MV was ruled a competent adult to make her own medical decisions, so the case ended then and there. MV was not required to disclose her diagnosis, and the assessors could not be compelled to provide any clinical justifications.

However, since the MAiD as a whole is described in a statute, the process itself is justiciable. The question of whether a MAiD assessor is “independent” or not can be litigated. He granted “public interest” standing to the father, as a precedent.

Although the father had standing, Judge Feasby ultimately ruled in favor of the daughter. Her right to die with dignity outweighed any emotional damages that her family would sustain from losing her. On March 25, 2024, he lifted the injunction, and MV’s MAiD could proceed.

The Appeal

The father, WV, appealed the ruling on April 2, 2024. The appeals hearing was scheduled for six months later, in October.

In late May, MV began voluntary stoppage of eating and drinking (VSED). In response to this, the appellate court moved the hearing date to June 24, but MV reportedly still continued to starve herself. On June 11, 2024, the father withdrew his appeal.

Since there was no hearing before the appeal was withdrawn, the original ruling stands as a precedent in Canadian law.

It is not publicly known whether MV went through with her MAiD. It’s now late 2025, and no other updates have been made public.

---

The father’s behavior set off all my alarm bells.

I can’t help but read between the lines, here. From the ruling:

MV’s father, WV, believes that she is vulnerable and is not competent to make the decision to take her own life. He says that she is generally healthy and believes that her physical symptoms, to the extent that she has any, result from undiagnosed psychological conditions. He submits that she does not meet the criteria to be eligible for MAiD. [...]

WV says that it is unclear to him whether MV suffers from a physical condition and he speculates that MV may suffer from psychological conditions that “caus[e] her to believe that she suffers from physiological symptoms.” [...]

WV states that MV’s close friend, DLG, is “an avid supporter of [MV’s] MAiD applications, and I fear that she may be unduly influencing [MV’s] decisions ... to pursue MAiD.” He provided no documentary or other evidence to support his view that DLG was unduly influencing MV. MV’s evidence confirms that DLG acted as her independent witness on her MAiD application.

Everything we know about MV’s medical record was submitted by her father, without her consent.

He submitted several of his daughter’s private medical records as evidence to show that she (supposedly) had nothing physically wrong with her. In addition to the autism assessment from 2016, he provided a letter that a specialist sent to her family doctor. The letter describes neurological testing from 2021 (when she was ~25 years old) which found nothing wrong.

This appears like the father had permission to view his daughter’s medical records at her family physician’s office—permission that was left over from when she was a minor and never withdrawn. He did not have access to any other records, from any other physicians.

He states that, “to his knowledge,” she hadn’t seen any other physicians or gotten any other diagnoses.

This is painting a very uncharitable picture of the father. He sounds like a controlling parent who is finally losing control. It sounds like he’s lashing out after his daughter stopped trusting him with her private medical decisions—including what is arguably the most important decision of her life.

I can’t help but model his thinking as something like: “Ugh! Enough of this whining. My daughter has had these vague ‘symptoms’ for years. It’s all in her head. I can’t believe AHS would do this! Those MAiD doctors just love killing people for no reason. None of this was a problem until that friend started influencing my daughter. God, I should have put her under a guardianship years ago. This nonsense has gone on long enough.“

Am I projecting? Absolutely. But I’ve witnessed this dynamic play out too many times in my life to not see it. I have known too many people who would say exactly what I typed above.

With a father like this, who needs enemies? I wouldn’t want to share my diagnosis, either.

I don’t know what MV’s physical diagnosis was. I don’t know why some assessors said no, and some said yes. And I’m never going to know because it’s none of my business. I am a random schmuck on the internet. She did not want to share it with anyone—not her family, not the courts, not the public—and I respect that decision.

Some more of my writings on MAiD:

Dying of a Terminal Illness is not Rare

How MAiD Actually Works in Canada