Case reference: MAID-ON-2024-23DD · St. Thomas, Ontario · Died by MAID · Confirmed by an official or institutional source
Who he was
Thomas Dillon lived in St. Thomas, Ontario, with his mother. He had Crohn’s disease, and it had shaped his whole adult life. According to the coroner’s committee, which called him “Mr. A,” the illness left him without an active social network, made it hard to keep a job, made personal relationships difficult, and left him dependent on his family for housing and money.
He also lived with a history of mental illness, earlier periods of suicidal thinking, and ongoing alcohol and opioid misuse, which had cost him his driver’s licence. His family, who housed and supported him, did not approve of his MAID request.
What happened
During a psychiatric assessment, Dillon was asked whether he knew about MAID and was given information about it. Dr. James MacLean of London, Ontario, and a second assessor found him eligible under Track 2, the route for people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. MacLean assessed him in a single encounter outside a Tim Hortons coffee shop. The two exchanged a large number of texts, including comments about his family’s views.
On the day of his death, Dillon’s sister arrived at the Tim Hortons, but he refused to ride with her. MacLean drove him himself to the provision site, which The Globe and Mail describes as an industrial-like facility where bodies are prepared for funerals. Dillon did not want to die at home, where he lived with his mother, because he knew his family did not approve. He died in January 2024, aged 45.
Why they were pushed toward MAID
Two official bodies have raised serious concerns. Ontario’s MAID Death Review Committee noted his isolation, his dependence on family, his mental illness and addiction, and that there was “no documented input from the family who were known to have had concerns about the MAID request.” Some members felt that addressing these social factors and his mental health might have offered alternatives.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found it concerning that MacLean discussed “sensitive MAID-related matters in an informal public setting.” It was troubled by the “quantity and nature” of his texts, and said driving Dillon to the provision “raised concerns about professional boundaries.” “Taken together, these actions created a risk that (MacLean’s) involvement could be perceived as influencing the patient,” the committee wrote, given the power imbalance and Dillon’s history. MacLean was cautioned and agreed to at least six months of supervision. He declined to comment, citing confidentiality.
What their family says
Dillon’s family complained to the College, and the detailed decision was shared with them. Dr. Ramona Coelho, a former member of the coroner’s committee, summed up what they faced: “The family was not engaged in the assessment process, despite being the patient’s primary support and despite the MAID provider being aware they were trying to raise concerns.”
“Collateral information from those closest to the patient is essential to understanding the factors contributing to the desire to die,” she said.
What this case shows
Thomas Dillon was isolated, mentally ill and struggling with addiction, and he was assessed for death at a coffee shop and driven there by his assessor. The family who housed and supported him was left out. His case, documented by both Ontario’s coroner and its medical regulator, shows how thin Track 2 safeguards can be in practice.
Leave a Reply