TL:DR – Jolene Van Alstine, a Canadian woman with a painful but treatable condition, was approved for assisted death after being unable to access surgery through her provincial health system. Canada’s MAiD law allows nonterminal patients to qualify based on suffering alone. There is no evidence she was coerced, but her case shows how assisted death can become the default when health care access fails. In the United States, she would not qualify for medical aid in dying because her illness is not terminal. The case raises policy questions about whether assisted dying should be available when treatment exists but is unreachable.
Jolene Van Alstine did not arrive at Medical Assistance in Dying because her body was shutting down. She arrived there because the health care system stopped responding.
Van Alstine, a Saskatchewan woman, has spent roughly eight years living with normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism, a painful endocrine disorder that affects bones, kidneys, and neurological function. She underwent three surgeries without resolution. Doctors agree the condition is medically treatable, but no surgeon in her province performs the procedure she needs. To obtain treatment elsewhere in Canada, she requires a referral from an endocrinologist. None in her region are accepting new patients.
That impasse defines the policy problem.
With no realistic path to treatment, Van Alstine applied for and was approved for Medical Assistance in Dying under Canadian law. At the time her story became public, she had a scheduled MAiD date in early January 2026. Her approval complied with existing law. The question raised by her case is not legality, but design.
Canada legalized MAiD in 2016. In 2021, Parliament expanded eligibility through Bill C-7, removing the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable. Under the current framework, patients with grievous and irremediable medical conditions may qualify even if their illness is not terminal. Suffering, not prognosis, drives eligibility.
In theory, that change was meant to respect autonomy. In practice, Van Alstine’s case shows how assisted death can function as a substitute when health care delivery fails. She was not pushed toward MAiD by a physician, and there is no evidence of coercion. But when treatment is inaccessible, choice narrows until death becomes the only option that the system can reliably provide.
That is not an individual failure. It is a policy outcome.
The distinction matters. Canada’s MAiD process requires assessments, documentation, and consent. Those steps were followed. What the law does not require is proof that the health care system made every reasonable effort to deliver available treatment. The absence of care does not disqualify MAiD eligibility. In effect, the state authorizes death without first ensuring access to life preserving medicine.
Canada’s MAiD process requires assessments, documentation, and consent. Those steps were followed. What the law does not require is proof that the health care system made every reasonable effort to deliver available treatment.
Glenn Beck, an American media figure, entered the story by offering to fund Van Alstine’s surgery and travel to the United States. His involvement was unusual but revealing. It demonstrated that treatment options may exist outside the Canadian system, even when the domestic system cannot deliver them. Private charity, not public policy, reopened the possibility of survival.
That contrast highlights the core issue. In Canada, MAiD is universally accessible. Specialized care is not.
Suffering produced by system breakdown should not be resolved by ending the patient’s life.
Supporters of the current framework argue that suffering itself justifies access to assisted death, regardless of cause. Critics respond that suffering produced by system breakdown should not be resolved by ending the patient’s life. Van Alstine’s case sits directly at that fault line.
The comparison with the United States clarifies the policy divide. Medical aid in dying is legal in only some U.S. states and only for patients with a terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less. A patient with Van Alstine’s condition would not qualify anywhere in the country. She might face insurance denials, long waits, or financial barriers, but the state would not authorize assisted death as an alternative.
The American approach reflects a judgment that assisted dying should be limited to the final stage of life, not used to manage chronic illness or administrative dead ends. Canada has made a different judgment, one that treats subjective suffering as sufficient even when treatment remains theoretically available.
This does not mean the Canadian system intends harm. It means the system lacks a safeguard that distinguishes between suffering caused by disease and suffering caused by policy failure. When both lead to the same endpoint, the law blurs the line between autonomy and abandonment.
Van Alstine’s case does not prove that Canada’s MAiD law is unlawful. It shows that the law operates exactly as written. That is precisely why it has drawn attention. When death is easier to access than care, the policy itself deserves scrutiny.
Her outcome will depend on whether treatment can be arranged before her scheduled MAiD date. That fact alone underscores the stakes. Survival now depends on speed, logistics, and private intervention, not on the public health system that approved her death.
Like this article? Share it and subscribe to the ReligiousLiberty.TV blog at
for access to breaking news, policy reporting, and legal case updates. Subscribers receive timely coverage focused on health care policy, conscience issues, and court developments.
This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.
SEO Tags: Canada MAiD policy, assisted dying law comparison, Jolene Van Alstine case, healthcare access and euthanasia, medical aid in dying debate
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
