Thousands of errors found in British Columbia euthanasia cases, internal report shows
Internal BC government report reveals 2,807 errors in 4,190 MAID cases in 2024, with 51.9% of outcomes needing corrective follow‑up. 4,169 MAID requests were made, 72% of patients died by MAID, 23% died of other causes, and 4% were ineligible; only 1.4% withdrew. The findings mirror 2023, indicating persistent systemic problems and a high rate of compliance concerns—353 cases requiring practitioner education. BC leads Canada in MAID‑related deaths, accounting for 6.5% of provincial deaths versus the national 5.1% average.
3 months ago
An internal British Columbia report found 2,807 errors in MAiD case records in 2024, with follow-up required in more than half of reported case outcomes. The figures are close to those reported for 2023, while the article also describes concerns raised by clinicians, advocates and a parliamentary committee about oversight and enforcement.
The Ministry of Health report says 4,169 people requested medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in 2024, nearly 10% more than in 2023. A chart in the same report, however, lists 4,190 MAiD cases; it records 2,807 errors among 51.9% of case outcomes that required follow-up to obtain missing information or clarify existing information.
Of the errors, 353 cases raised compliance concerns and led to education for practitioners or pharmacists about legal requirements and professional standards. The report’s data also indicate that 72% of the 4,169 people died by MAiD, 23% died of other causes, 4% were found ineligible, and 1.4% withdrew their requests.
The 2023 report recorded 2,833 errors in 3,808 cases, similar in scale to the following year’s findings. In 2024, MAiD accounted for 6.5% of deaths in British Columbia, compared with a national average of 5.1%, according to figures cited in the article.
Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition called the reported volume of errors alarming and urged tighter controls, stronger oversight and public reporting. Amanda Achtman of Canadian Physicians for Life also criticized the practice and said the errors reflected inadequate care; these are the views of the advocates quoted in the article.
Dr. Kevin Sclater, a former hospice physician, said the error rate was shocking and called for the health ministry to strengthen regulation. He also questioned whether MAiD assessments adequately evaluate a person’s decision-making capacity.
The article reports that British Columbia’s health minister did not respond to an interview request or to questions from opposition health critic Dr. Anna Kindy, who asked whether the province would publish annual information on compliance concerns, referrals, trends and recommendations. The provincial medical association said clinical outcomes were outside its scope and directed questions about regulatory oversight to the physicians’ college; the college, in turn, referred health-system matters to the ministry.
A June report from the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on MAiD recommended indefinitely excluding cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. In a supplementary opinion, committee co-chair Marcus Powlowski described concerns about some providers’ interpretations of eligibility rules and said witnesses questioned whether regulators and government bodies were adequately pursuing misconduct allegations.
The report’s release coincided with the 10th anniversary of legalized euthanasia in Canada. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Standing Committee for Family and Life marked the anniversary with a statement opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide and urging support for people who are sick and vulnerable.
Human dignity, vulnerable persons, and the ethics of euthanasia oversight
Catholic teaching connects human dignity, protection of vulnerable persons, and euthanasia oversight at a basic point: a person’s worth does not depend on health, independence, or freedom from suffering. Therefore, oversight may help protect patients and ensure proper care, but it cannot make euthanasia morally acceptable or treat the deliberate ending of an innocent person’s life as a legitimate medical outcome.
The Church rejects the idea that suffering, disability, dependence, or terminal illness makes someone’s life less dignified. Dignity is intrinsic and inalienable, not something measured by a person’s perceived quality of life or ability to act autonomously. Describing assisted death as “death with dignity” risks implying that some lives have become undignified because they are painful or dependent.
This does not mean that suffering should be ignored or that every medical intervention must continue. The Church calls for appropriate palliative care and accepts avoiding treatments that are aggressive or disproportionate. The moral distinction is between allowing death to occur without burdensome treatment and choosing an action or omission precisely to cause death.
A request for euthanasia occurs within relationships and social circumstances—not in isolation. Illness, pain, fear, loneliness, or the feeling of being a burden may affect how a person sees the choices available. Catholic teaching therefore insists that compassion means accompanying the suffering person, relieving pain, and meeting care needs—not facilitating suicide. It warns that a response focused on ending life can abandon the person whose vulnerability calls for care.
That concern is not an argument that every request is insincere or that every patient lacks decision-making capacity. Rather, it cautions against treating autonomy as the only relevant ethical consideration. The dignity of the patient, the duty of care, and the responsibilities of health professionals also matter.
In Catholic moral terms, oversight can serve life when it scrutinizes care decisions, guards against neglect or coercion, and helps ensure that patients receive pain relief, appropriate treatment, and personal support. The Church has also raised concerns about end-of-life protocols when they are used ambiguously, without proper consultation, or in ways that weaken the duty to protect a critically ill patient.
But safeguards, reviews, or procedural consent cannot change the moral character of euthanasia if the chosen act or omission is intended to cause death to eliminate suffering. The Church teaches that euthanasia is intrinsically evil and that direct cooperation in it is morally unacceptable. Thus oversight should not be understood simply as making euthanasia safer or more regulated; the Catholic question is whether the system protects the patient while refusing to make intentional killing part of care.
The practical alternative is not abandonment or futile treatment. It is care that stays with the person: palliative medicine, proportionate treatment, long-term support, and attention to emotional and spiritual needs. The supplied material does not identify a particular oversight body, law, or news event, so its specific procedures and effectiveness cannot be assessed here. It does, however, support a clear ethical test: oversight is consistent with Catholic teaching insofar as it protects vulnerable people, preserves their dignity, and ensures care without authorizing the intentional ending of their lives.