“Choice can only exist in the presence of options.”

So says Eric Holmes, executive director of Right to Live Canada, a Canadian start-up non-profit seeking a solution to economic, poverty-driven euthanasia. Holmes and company have officially launched a campaign to build Canada’s first formal referral system offering genuine, funded alternatives to medical assistance in dying (MAiD).

The organization aims to address “economic euthanasia,” where people choose MAiD not because they wish to die, but because systemic gaps in infrastructures like housing, funding, disability supports or coordination make life unlivable. With the creation of a complete, referable infrastructure, Right to Live seeks to give MAiD assessors something real to refer applicants to and restore actual choice in the conversation. 

Advertisement

Right to Live specifically points to cases like Sophia, the pseudonym of a 51-year-old Ontario woman with severe sensitivities to chemicals who chose medically-assisted death after a desperate search for affordable housing that would limit her multiple chemical sensitivities was ignored. Or Christine Gauthier, a paraplegic former member of the Canadian military who was offered medically assisted death equipment by Veterans Affairs as a proposed alternative for a requested home wheelchair lift. 

When asked if he believes the lack of structured alternatives has contributed to broader societal and political acceptance of MAiD expansion in Canada, Holmes pointed to the opposite.  

“From what evidence I have seen, disability groups have raised the issue to the highest levels in Canada, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as well as to the United Nations, and as a result, the CHRC has issued condemnation and (Canada has) been investigated by the UN about this issue and received recommendations to halt the (MAiD) program. Overall, the news articles and public reactions, both domestic and international, have corresponded well to the issues being raised, showing deep concern, alarm and disapproval,” he said. 

Right to Live’s solution comes in the form of a tripartite model consisting of a national viable alternative assessment service, dedicated case navigation and a social brokerage service. In practice, a referral would lead to an intake and co-creation of options like a housing-focused proposal before the team identifies temporary solutions while securing permanent, suitable housing. Funding would then be secured via pre-committed market brokerage or reserves. 

As Holmes explained, the goal is not just to find any living option, but “the most preferable living future available and achievable” to the individual.

While still in its early stages, Right to Live’s campaign is officially seeking individual, corporate and institutional sponsors, with an immediate goal of securing a minimum of $600,000 to recruit core executive and operational personnel, establish operational infrastructure and execute a three-case pilot program to prove the model’s effectiveness. 

Advertisement

Holmes hopes a successful pilot program and continued solution-based work can make all the difference in the world in protecting those impacted by MAiD. 

“A functioning safety system should mean that cases are not just identified or nullified, but are given solutions that are preferable to the person in question, rendering MAiD no longer a viable tool of systemic abuse or misuse and allowing the individual a route out of the abusive state in question. This is fundamentally what a viable alternative means, as it requires the resolution of the source suffering that drives the application,” he said.  

Holmes said official MAiD annual reports are not capturing such deficits, often because they simply don’t ask the right questions.

“Nobody is asking the applicant(s), ‘Is there a living alternative you would prefer but just cannot afford?’ If you look at the cases making headlines, or studies like the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Bridging the Gaps report, the reality is undeniable — the absence of a dedicated structure to identify, fund and execute alternatives has resulted in the preventable deaths of people who would have otherwise chosen to live,” he said.  

Right to Live’s full infrastructure concept has been developed over the past eight months, in a period that has seen Right to Live shift from mere advocacy to solutions. 

“ When we were founded in early 2023, you look at the nonprofit industry and conduct yourself accordingly by advocating or running a food drive. As you evolve, you start looking at what solutions would look like. Eventually, we started asking, ‘What if we were the ones to come up with that solution? What would that look like?’ ” Holmes said. 

See righttolive.ca.

Advertisement