AB’s current condition is that she is in an advanced state of
incurable, irreversible, inflammatory and erosive osteoarthritis.
Her medical condition is not imminently terminal. She is immobile due to constant arthritic pain and cannot perform daily tasks.
Her pain is intense, despite every effort of her physicians to manage the pain, which she experiences in her knees, hips, back,
stomach, fingers and toes. She frequently wakes up screaming in
pain. Her esophagus has constricted, and it is painful to eat and
to swallow medication. She recently suffered from pneumonia.
Her condition will worsen. There are no further treatment
options. She feels that she has no future other than to live in pain
until allowed to die.
 In January 2017, AB decided that she was ready for medical assistance in dying. She spoke to Physician A, who referred
her to Physician 1.
 On April 4, 2017, Physician 1, a general practitioner, told
AB that her natural death had become reasonable foreseeable,
and on April 6, 2017, AB made a written request for medical
assistance in dying to him.
 Physician 1, who was prepared to provide assistance, concluded that AB met all the criteria set out in s. 241.2(1) of the
Criminal Code. Physician 1 deposed that AB’s death was reasonably foreseeable given her age and irreversible, incurable,
debilitating illness that is causing her incredible suffering.
 Having one assessment, AB hoped that Physician A would
agree to be the second assessor and confirm that she was eligible
for medical assistance in dying, but he was not. He was of the
view that AB’s death was not reasonably foreseeable. AB sought
out another assessor, the second assessor required by Bill C-14.
 On May 8, 2017, Physician 2 assessed AB and provided a
written opinion confirming her eligibility for medical assistance
 Physician 1, however, was not prepared to proceed with
the medically assisted death. He deposed:
Despite the fact I have assessed AB and have concluded she meets the crite-
ria for MAID [medical assistance in dying], I am also aware that at least one
other physician who has assessed AB does not agree. Specifically, that phy-
sician is of the opinion that AB’s natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.
Because of the conflicting opinions, and in spite of the fact another physician
agrees with me, I do not feel I can proceed with MAID in all of the circumstances. While I am of the opinion that AB meets the criteria for MAID, I am
uncomfortable performing the procedure because if I am wrong in my understanding of the meaning of “reasonably foreseeable” in section 241.2(2)(d) of
the Criminal Code, I put myself at risk of being charged with murder.
My uncertainty about proceeding is due to the vagueness of the term “
reasonably foreseeable.” From a medical point of view, I believe that AB’s natural