Sue Rodriguez: The Case That Shaped Canada's MAID Law

Who was Sue Rodriguez?

Sue Rodriguez was born in Winnipeg in 1950. She grew up near Toronto, lived for a time in California, and later settled in Victoria, British Columbia. She was a mother to a young son, Cole.

In 1991, doctors told her she had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. ALS slowly stops the nerves from controlling the muscles. Over time, people lose the use of their hands and legs, then the ability to swallow and speak. There is no cure.

Sue did not want her illness to decide when and how her life would end. She knew a day would come when she could not act on her own. She wanted a doctor to be allowed to help her at that point. But in Canada, helping someone end their life was a crime, with a prison term of up to 14 years.

By November 1992 she was too ill to appear in person in Ottawa. So she recorded a video for a committee of Members of Parliament. Holding up her twisted hands, she asked them a question that Canadians still repeat today. As The New York Times reported:

"If I cannot give consent to my own death, then whose body is this? Who owns my life?" — Sue Rodriguez, video to a parliamentary committee, November 1992

She was 42. Her son was 7.

What did Sue Rodriguez ask the courts for?

Sue and her lawyer, Chris Considine, went to court in British Columbia. They argued that the ban on assisted suicide, section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, broke the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter is like the rulebook above all other rulebooks. If an ordinary law breaks the Charter, a court can cancel it. Sue's team pointed to three Charter rights:

• Section 7: the right to life, liberty and "security of the person", which includes control over your own body.
• Section 12: the right not to suffer cruel and unusual treatment.
• Section 15: the right to equal treatment, including for people with a disability.

Her equality argument was simple. Attempting suicide was no longer a crime in Canada. So the law left a choice open to people who were physically able. A person like Sue, whose body no longer worked, could not make that choice without help, and anyone who helped her would be a criminal. In her view, the law treated her worse because of her disability.

She lost in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In March 1993, she lost again in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, by 2 to 1. Hours later, she left a news conference at a hotel in Victoria. Traffic stopped, and strangers on the street clapped for her. "It seemed as if time stopped," Considine later said.

What did the Supreme Court of Canada decide in 1993?

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the case on 20 May 1993. On 30 September 1993, it ruled against her by 5 votes to 4. A 5 to 4 decision is like a football match won by a single goal. The result counts, but nobody thinks the argument is over.

Justice John Sopinka wrote for the majority. In plain English, his reasoning had four steps:

1. Yes, the law hurt her. It took away her control over decisions about her own body. It caused her physical pain and mental stress. So it did affect her "security of the person".
2. But the law was not unfair in the legal sense. The ban protected vulnerable people who, in a moment of weakness, might be pushed towards suicide. The state has a deep interest in protecting life.
3. Most of the world agreed with the ban. A full ban was the norm in Western democracies. No court had said such a ban was against human rights.
4. Safeguards might not be enough. The judges feared that once some assisted deaths were allowed, it would be hard to stop abuse.

The majority summed up their view like this:

"To the extent that there is a consensus, it is that human life must be respected" — Justice John Sopinka, for the majority, Rodriguez v. British Columbia, 1993

The court also rejected her other arguments. A ban, it said, is not "treatment" by the state, so section 12 did not apply. On equality, the majority assumed she was treated unequally, but said the ban was a reasonable limit that protected others.

When the judgment came, Considine remembers, her first words were: "So close, just one vote, so close."

Why did four judges agree with her?

The four dissenting judges gave different reasons. Together, they planted the seeds of the later change.

• Justice Beverley McLachlin (joined by Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé) said the law was arbitrary. Sue was being denied a choice that able-bodied people had, only because others might be abused. She said Sue was being treated as a "scapegoat" for other people's risks.
• Chief Justice Antonio Lamer said the law discriminated against people with physical disabilities. He suggested a careful exception, approved by a court and by doctors, with strict conditions.
• Justice Peter Cory said dying with dignity is part of life, and so it deserves the same protection as the rest of life.

The majority did not like the dissent's proposed conditions. Justice Sopinka said they were vague and would leave each judge to decide alone. That disagreement, about whether safeguards can really work, is still at the centre of the debate today. Nine years later, Europe's human rights court weighed the same worry in the UK's Diane Pretty case.

What happened after the ruling?

The law did not change. But the public conversation did.

In February 1994, about four months after the ruling, Sue Rodriguez died, aged 43. A doctor whose name has never been made public helped her, against the law. There was a criminal investigation, but no charges were laid. Her life was later told in a 1998 film, At the End of the Day: The Sue Rodriguez Story.

Over the next two decades, Parliament debated assisted dying again and again. The Supreme Court later counted no less than six bills between 1991 and 2010. None passed. Meanwhile, other places changed their laws, including the Netherlands, Belgium and several US states. Our section on euthanasia laws by country shows where things stand now.

Doctors changed too. In August 2014, delegates at the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting voted 91% to support the right of each doctor to "follow their conscience" on medical aid in dying. Its earlier policy, from 2007, had said doctors should not take part.

How did the Rodriguez case lead to MAID in Canada?

Courts usually follow earlier decisions, like walkers following footprints in the snow. This rule is called stare decisis. So for a new case to win, it had to show that something important had changed since 1993.

That new case was Carter v. Canada. Gloria Taylor, a British Columbia woman, also had ALS. Like Sue before her, the court wrote, she did "not want to die slowly, piece by piece". The family of Kay Carter, who had a serious spine condition, joined the case.

This time, the lawyers built a much bigger record. They brought evidence from patients across Canada and from experts in places where assisted dying was already legal.

On 6 February 2015, all nine judges of the Supreme Court agreed. The total ban was too broad and broke section 7 of the Charter. In the first paragraph of the ruling, the judges described the position of people with a grievous illness under the ban: they could die early, or suffer until a natural death. "The choice is cruel," they wrote.

The court said the old rule of following Rodriguez was "not a straitjacket". Both the law and the facts had moved on.

Here is what followed:

• June 2016: Parliament passed Bill C-14. Medical assistance in dying (MAID) became legal for adults whose natural death was "reasonably foreseeable". See our guide to the words euthanasia, assisted suicide and MAID.
• 2019: In the Truchon case, a Quebec court said the "reasonably foreseeable" rule was unconstitutional.
• March 2021: Bill C-7 opened MAID to people whose death is not near, with extra safeguards, including an assessment period of at least 90 days.
• February 2024: Parliament delayed MAID for people whose only condition is a mental illness until 17 March 2027. Read more in our guide to MAID and mental illness.

How common is MAID now? Health Canada's sixth annual report, published in November 2025, says 16,499 people received MAID in 2024. That was 5.1% of all deaths in Canada, about 1 in 20. The median age was 77.9. Among people whose death was reasonably foreseeable, cancer was the main condition in 63.6% of cases. About 74% had received palliative care. Only 732 people (4.4%) were in the group whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

What do supporters and critics say today?

People of good faith disagree deeply about this question. Here are the main views. For the evidence behind them, see our section on the arguments for and against euthanasia.

Supporters say Sue Rodriguez was right: a competent adult should decide about their own body and their own death. They point to the safeguards in the law: two independent assessments, a written request with a witness, and the right to withdraw the request at any time, in any way.

Disability-rights groups see it very differently. In a public statement led by the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and Inclusion Canada, and signed by 83 groups and individuals, they called Bill C-7 "an assault on the Equality Rights of people with disabilities". Their fear is that MAID may become a substitute for "assistance in living": housing, care and income support. This is the opposite of Sue's equality argument. She said the ban discriminated against disabled people. They say the expanded law does.

Religious groups also object. After Carter, Archbishop Paul-André Durocher, then president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote that helping someone die is "neither an act of justice or mercy, nor is it part of palliative care". Many faith groups call instead for better palliative care for everyone. Read more about what different religions say about assisted dying.

Doctors remain divided. Some provide MAID. Others will not take part for reasons of conscience. Some worry about patients who feel like a burden, or who lack good care.

Both sides often agree on one thing: nobody should feel they must choose death because they cannot get the care they need. Assisted dying is not an answer to depression or a crisis.

What does the Rodriguez case mean for families today?

Sue Rodriguez fought for control over the end of her life. Whatever you think of assisted dying, her story raises a question every family can ask: if I could not speak, who would know what I want?

Here are practical steps:

• Talk early. Have the conversation while everyone is calm. Our guide on how to talk to your family about end-of-life wishes gives opening lines.
• Write an advance directive. It is a letter to future doctors about treatments you would or would not want. See advance directives and living wills.
• Name one person to speak for you. In Canada this person is often called a substitute decision-maker. See how to choose a healthcare proxy.
• Know the limits. In most of Canada, you cannot ask for MAID in an advance directive. You must be able to consent at the time. Quebec is the exception. Since 30 October 2024, adults there with a serious, incurable illness that will take away their capacity, such as Alzheimer's disease, can make an advance request.
• Ask about palliative care. Good pain and symptom care is available whatever you decide. Learn more in our palliative care guide.
• Check your country's law. Rules are very different around the world. See countries where euthanasia is legal.

Questions to think about

• Sue asked, "Who owns my life?" How would you answer her?
• Do you think safeguards can fully protect vulnerable people? Why or why not?
• What would "a good day" mean to you if you became very ill?
• Who in your family would you trust to speak for you?

Sue Rodriguez lost her case by one vote. Her question did not lose. It stayed in Canada's courts, its Parliament and its kitchens for more than 20 years. Read about other landmark stories in our guide to famous euthanasia and right-to-die cases.

If this topic brings up heavy feelings, you do not have to carry them alone. You can talk to someone today.