The Quebec Superior Court in April ordered the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal to keep a woman on life support to give her husband the opportunity to arrange for her to be sent home to die in Nigeria.
The hospital earlier this year requested permission to stop all treatment for the 42-year-old and place her on palliative care after concluding she had no chance of neurological recovery.
Her husband opposed the change, asking the hospital to keep his wife alive long enough for her to be transferred home to Nigeria at the end of their children’s school year.
Superior Court Justice Florence Lucas sided with the husband, writing that the benefits of the hospital plan did not outweigh the rights of the wife, described as Mme S., to die in his home country.
“Ultimately, the court concludes that the beneficial effects of the care plan do not outweigh M’s fundamental rights.me S. to live, to be treated and, ultimately, to die in her country,” the judge wrote in an April 18 decision, recently published online.
“Given the exceptional circumstances of this case, the applicants’ request for treatment must be dismissed,” the decision states.
Court documents state that the Nigerian-born lawyer moved to Montreal with her two children to pursue graduate studies in 2021 and had no health issues until she suddenly fell ill and collapsed in a hospital emergency room in July 2023. The document states that she experienced “prolonged cardiopulmonary arrest, requiring resuscitation, and resuscitation achieved after a prolonged period of time.”
Her husband, who came from Nigeria to be by her side, maintained that his wife had no family in Quebec, that she had not planned to stay there and that she would have wanted to return to Nigeria if she had been given the choice.
The plaintiffs – the hospital and a doctor – argued that repatriation was against the patient’s best interests, would likely cost the husband more than $150,000 and that “some might argue that in the meantime, another patient is being deprived of space and care in the hospital,” the decision said.
They argued that their plan to remove life support and provide palliative care as soon as possible was the best way to relieve pain and suffering.
Judge Lucas concluded, however, that the hospital project “denies Mr.me S. her rights to liberty, autonomy and dignity” by depriving her of the possibility of returning to her country. The judge also concluded that the husband had taken all necessary measures to complete the transfer while ensuring that the children, who attend primary and secondary school, could complete their school year.
The judge also noted that there appeared to be “no urgency” in removing life support, noting that the patient had been stable for eight months and showed no real signs of suffering, “given her minimally conscious state.”
The transfer was scheduled for June 28, according to the court document, but attorneys listed as representing the hospital and the husband could not be reached Tuesday for comment on whether the transfer took place.