Bill 194 amends Québec law to create a default rule: adults are presumed to have authorized post‑mortem removal of organs and tissues unless they have expressly refused. It rewrites two Civil Code articles to codify that presumption, preserves ways for people to record or revoke consent (verbally before two witnesses or in writing), and requires those requesting removal to take “reasonable measures” with persons close to the deceased to confirm there was no refusal.
The bill also updates the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec’s registry and consent form to record refusals as well as consents, permits certain personal identification information to be shared with designated organ‑coordination bodies on request, adjusts notarial registries and rules, and requires the Health Minister to report on implementation five years after coming into force and every five years thereafter. The changes concentrate operational responsibilities on hospitals, donation coordinators and the Régie while shifting the legal starting point toward donation unless an opt‑out is recorded or reliably discovered.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes consent to post‑mortem organ or tissue removal the legal default for adults, requires requesters to verify no refusal with close persons unless a documented medical urgency exists, and amends provincial registries and forms to accept and publicize refusals and consents.
Who It Affects
Hospitals, transplant coordinators and clinicians who request organs; the Régie (who will update forms and a consent/refusal registry); notaries and the Chambre des notaires (registry name and disclosure rules); and adult Québec residents whose silence will constitute presumed authorization unless they opt out.
Why It Matters
It shifts the legal presumption from non‑consent to consent, changing the starting point for clinical decision‑making and organ procurement logistics, creating new duties for frontline staff and administrative systems, and raising operational and privacy questions about how refusals are recorded, checked and shared.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a legal presumption that every person of full age in Québec has authorized post‑mortem removal of organs and tissues unless they expressly refused. That presumption changes how donation decisions are treated at the bedside: unless a refusal is known, practitioners and donation coordinators may proceed under the statutory presumption.
The bill nonetheless preserves routes to express or revoke a choice—either in writing or verbally before two witnesses—and adds a fallback rule for deceased minors: where the minor’s wishes are unknown, a part of the body may be removed with consent from the person who would have had authority to consent to care.
Operationally, the bill requires the requester of organ or tissue removal to “take reasonable measures” with persons close to the deceased to ensure no refusal exists. That obligation disappears only when two physicians put in writing that the operation is urgent and holds a serious hope of saving or appreciably improving a life.
The text therefore creates an urgency exception that allows procurement to proceed without the family‑check step when waiting would jeopardize outcomes.On the administrative side, the bill renames and modifies the Régie’s consent registry and its consent/notice form. The form must tell people about the presumption, explain how to refuse, confirm that identification and form information may be sent on request to provincially designated organ‑coordination bodies, and state that the Régie will not solicit consent again if a person has already recorded a decision.
The Chambre des notaires’ registry language is updated to record refusals as well as consents, and the Regulation limits disclosure of registry information to the donor, an expressly authorised mandatary, a practising notary or persons the Minister designates for consent‑seeking responsibilities.Finally, the Minister of Health and Social Services must report to government on implementation five years after the law comes into force and every five years thereafter; the competent Assembly committee will examine those reports. The bill leaves the precise coming‑into‑force date to the government, which means agencies will need to plan implementation details after the enactment date is set.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill legally presumes every adult has authorized post‑mortem organ or tissue removal unless they have explicitly recorded a refusal.
A requester must take "reasonable measures" to confirm with persons close to the deceased that no refusal exists — unless two physicians certify in writing that urgency and serious hope justify proceeding immediately.
The Régie’s registry and consent form are reworked: forms must inform people of the presumption, the opt‑out option, and that identification/form data can be sent on request to Minister‑designated organ‑coordination bodies published on the Régie’s website.
The Chambre des notaires’ registry language is changed to record both consents and refusals, and disclosure from that registry is limited to the donor, an expressly appointed mandatary, a practicing notary or a minister‑designated official.
The Minister must report to government on how the law is being implemented five years after coming into force and then every five years, and the competent National Assembly committee must examine the report.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
How expressions of consent or refusal are made and revoked
Article 43 is recast to confirm that authorization or refusal can be made verbally before two witnesses or in writing and revoked the same way; it also adds that a valid authorization should be followed unless there is a compelling reason not to. Practically, this preserves informal routes (witnessed verbal statements) alongside written records, which will matter in time‑sensitive hospital conversations or where registries are incomplete.
Presumption of adult consent and the urgency exception
Article 44 establishes the core presumption: a person of full age is presumed to have authorized removal of organs or tissues post‑mortem. It requires the requester to take reasonable measures with persons close to the deceased to ensure no refusal exists, but waives that duty where two physicians provide written attestations that the procedure is urgent and carries a serious hope of saving or materially improving a life. This section shifts legal risk to the requester and attending physicians to document urgency or the family‑check steps.
Consent/refusal registry, notification form, and data sharing
The Régie’s consent registry is renamed to include refusals and the statutory consent form must now: notify adults of the presumption; provide a mechanism to register a refusal or withdrawal; state that identifying information and form data can be sent on request to designated organ‑coordination bodies; and note the Régie will not re‑solicit if a choice is already recorded. Those changes create administrative tasks for the Régie (form redesign, public guidance, list publication) and operational dependencies between the registry and coordination bodies.
Operational alignment for health institutions
Amendments to the health services act align institutional rules with the presumption by adding references to refusals and explicitly covering presumed consent. Hospitals and health centers will need to adapt procurement protocols and record‑keeping to reflect both the presumption and the required checks with close persons, and to handle situations where consent is presumed but a family dispute or lack of registry information complicates action.
Notarial registries record refusals and restrict disclosure
Notarial law and the Chambre des notaires’ regulation are updated to rename registries and insert refusals alongside consents. The regulation tightens who can access registry entries: only the donor, a mandatary with explicit authority, a practising notary, or a minister‑designated person responsible for seeking consents/refusals. That creates a controlled access model but leaves open how Minister‑designated roles will be defined and credentialed.
Reporting and coming into force
The Minister must report on implementation no later than five years after the law comes into effect and every five years thereafter; the competent Assembly committee will examine the report. The government sets the law’s start date, which means preparatory administrative work (forms, IT changes, training, publishing the list of designated coordinators) must proceed before the commencement date is announced to meet the reporting and operational obligations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Potential organ and tissue recipients and transplant programs — the presumption is designed to increase available donors and reduce delays caused by unavailable or ambiguous consent, potentially improving transplant rates and outcomes.
- Hospitals and donation coordinators — clearer statutory permission can reduce legal uncertainty when time is short and standardize procedures for procurement and urgency determinations, simplifying decision pathways for clinicians.
- Public health planners and the health system — a default consent regime can increase organ supply at a population level and allow more predictable resource planning for transplantation networks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Persons close to the deceased and families — relatives face a greater onus to know and produce an express refusal where one exists; they may confront distressing situations if unaware of the presumption.
- Clinicians and hospital staff — the bill creates procedural duties (taking "reasonable measures" to check for refusals) and documentation requirements, plus the burden of proving an urgency exception when needed, with attendant training and potential liability concerns.
- The Régie, the Chambre des notaires and the Ministry — statutory renaming, form redesign, registry updates, IT changes, publication of designated coordinator lists and staff training will impose administrative costs and project management obligations on these bodies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: the law aims to increase organ supply and save lives by making consent the default, but doing so reduces the friction that previously safeguarded individual autonomy and explicit consent. Policymakers must choose between maximizing donation rates through a presumption and preserving absolute clarity of individual choice and privacy — a trade‑off the bill leaves to administrative practice rather than resolving in statute.
The bill trades individual affirmative opt‑in for an opt‑out architecture without prescribing a detailed, standardized operational definition of several key terms: "reasonable measures" to check with persons close to the deceased; what precisely counts as an express refusal in practice; or how registry matches and data exchanges will work in time‑sensitive clinical settings. Those gaps leave hospitals and coordinators to develop operational practices that could vary across institutions and create legal uncertainty about compliance and liability.
Data‑sharing provisions permit identification and form data to be sent on request to Minister‑designated coordination bodies, but the bill does not set out privacy safeguards, retention limits, audit rights or an administrative process for authorizing those designated persons. That creates potential tension between maximizing organ match efficiency and protecting personal health and identity information, and it raises questions about who may access registry entries during contested family disputes or post‑mortem investigations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.