Sundance Review: ‘Life After’ is a Critical and Multidimensional Exploration of Medical Aid in Dying and Disabilities

The finality of death is something that scares or at the very least worries a large percentage of people. It’s hard to know what someone truly wants as the end approaches, and, even more concerningly, if someone might have made a different decision about extending their life if they more broadly understood their options or could see into their future. Reid Davenport’s documentary Life After looks at the complexities of Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) and how expanding its potential pool of users may actually do more harm than good.

Following his first feature, I Didn’t See You There, which also premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, Davenport once again places himself in a position adjacent to what it is that he’s examining. While that film looked at the history of the circus “Freak Show,” this one begins with the legacy of Elizabeth Bouvia, a disabled woman living in California who in 1983 championed her right to die through legal means. Initially featured in widespread media coverage, her story was subsequently abandoned, leaving many unanswered questions about what happened to her after her arduous efforts to take her life – and her death – into her own hands.

While Bouvia may be the jumping-off point for this documentary, she’s hardly its encompassing center. Unlike another highly-publicized case, that of Terri Schiavo, Bouvia was able to advocate for herself and communicate verbally, abilities which, to some, indicated that there was no reason for her to be granted permission to end her life. This film digs much deeper into that question, exploring the cascading effects of disability which can, in some instances, make living unbearably difficult, and the prospect of arranging and affording care indefinitely far less appealing than the choice to go out on someone’s own terms.

Where this conversation has always gotten more complicated, and as Davenport compellingly investigates, is whether those who are legally allowed to end their own lives will feel any undue pressure to do so, whether it’s because a doctor has told them it’s the only option or because they believe themselves to be such a burden to others that it would be better for all if they were no longer alive. One particularly heartbreaking situation shown in the film features interviews with a woman who never got to say goodbye to her husband after he was encouraged to utilize MAID without her knowledge, and continues to mourn and seek justice for him.

The expansion of MAID in Canada to include certain disabilities is yet another added factor of complexity since, by assessing that such states might be so intolerable, inherently argues that there is something wrong with them. That’s where Davenport’s guidance becomes most critical and powerful in this film, as he seeks out a range of people with differing opinions that captures the confounding and expansive nature of this dilemma. Davenport is a part of this story because he utilizes his disability to spark important and difficult conversations, weaving himself into all his work in an extremely compelling and resonant way.

For those completely unfamiliar with MAID and who confuse euthanasia with physician-assisted suicide (or physician-assisted death, as it is often known), this film serves as a cursory primer that quickly moves away from legality to ethics. For those well-versed in this world, it’s a poignant, deeply human look at real people who desperately desire autonomy but at the same time seek not to have their existences judged or diminished because someone seems them as less capable. Davenport’s vision and approach should serve as a model to other filmmakers who become part of their own work, never in the way of his story but instead fully intertwined with it.

 Movie Rating: 8/10