While I agree that assistance in dying should not be used to offset a lack of other necessary care, like mental health, addictions (which I believe are disqualifiers for MAID), or disability, the article provided only examples of health care professionals offering the service to people who had severly diminished quality of life as an option of part of their care. I think it’s a stretch to say these were examples of coersion. The decision is left solely to the patient, and I think their family’s account can often cloud any reporting of what the patient’s wishes actually are.

Anecdotally, the health professionals I know say there are far too many families, and ocassionally doctors who think they’re superheros, who wish to prolong their relative’s/patient’s life for the sole purpose of delaying death. People, like Mr. Nichols’ family, will say he’s got a great quality of life, but picture yourself in his shoes. Deaf for most of your life, now vision loss, seizures, your body essentially withering away. He was suffering, and clearly, he wanted to end it. Several inquiries noted he fully qualified for and received MAID as he wished, even though it may not have been the wish of his family.

I do think it would be useful to have a review panel for more complex cases, like Dr Marmoreo suggests. But, I think the majority of cases where the family might raise concerns are cases where they are prioretizing their wishes above those of the patient actually seeking the care, rather than a professional wantonly pushing MAID for no particular reason.

You seem to have missed the part where I asked for an example. That means providing evidence for one’s claims.