The woman’s husband believes she would want to die at home in Nigeria.
A Quebec court has ruled against a Montreal hospital that wanted to end life-prolonging treatment for a patient in a vegetative state, finding the plan would violate her right to live and die in her home country.
Doctors at the McGill University Health Centre had sought to withdraw artificial life support from the 42-year-old woman, identified in the ruling as Mrs. S., who had been in a vegetative state for eight months and who doctors believe has no chance of recovery.
However, Mrs. S.’s husband wanted the hospital to prolong her treatment and to cooperate with a plan to bring her back to Nigeria, so she could die in her homeland, according to the ruling by Judge Florence Lucas, dated April 18, but only recently published.
The nine doctors who treated Mrs. S. “unanimously conclude that there is no chance of neurological recovery, that therapeutic futility has been reached and that Mrs. S. should be allowed to pass away in dignity,” Lucas wrote in her decision. “In fact, all agree that Mrs. S. should be allowed to live the last moments of her life and pass away in dignity. This is exactly the goal of her loved ones.”
Mrs. S. moved to Montreal in 2021 for graduate school, according to the ruling, bringing her two children with her, while her husband, a lawyer, remained in Nigeria.
In July 2023, she went to the Montreal General Hospital after experiencing discomfort. She collapsed in the lobby and suffered a prolonged cardiorespiratory arrest, according to the ruling
After eight months, the doctors treating Mrs. S. recommended removing artificial life support and providing palliative care.
Her husband — who had come to Canada shortly after she was hospitalized and spent every day with her — refused the new treatment plan. He asked the hospital to extend treatment until late June so their children, in Grade 3 and Secondary 3, could finish school for the year, and to collaborate with his plan to return her to Nigeria.
The hospital sought court authorization for its treatment plan after the husband, identified in the ruling as O.S., refused it.
O.S. argued that his wife had the fundamental right “to live, be cared for and pass away peacefully and in dignity, with her relatives, in her country.”
He told the court that behind closed doors, some doctors told him there have been exceptional cases of recovery and that even if the doctors who said she would not recover were right, she would have wanted to have her last moments in Nigeria, according to the ruling.
The hospital argued that returning Mrs. S. to Nigeria was not in her best interest, that the plan was unrealistic and that keeping her on life support was causing “undue discomfort and suffering,” according to the ruling.
The hospital also argued that keeping Mrs. S. alive until the end of the school year would be overtreatment banned by law, the judge wrote.
However, Lucas found that the transfer plan organized by O.S. — which was expected to cost more than $150,000 — was not unrealistic, and that Mrs. S. didn’t show signs of suffering.
The hospital’s care plan denied Mrs. S. her “rights of liberty, autonomy and dignity,” the judge wrote.
“In the end, the court concludes that the beneficial effects of the care plan do not outweigh Mrs. S.’s fundamental rights to live, to be cared for and ultimately, to pass away in her country,” Lucas found.