For those advocates fighting for medically assisted deaths since long before Sue Rodriguez became a national symbol of this struggle, last year’s Supreme Court decision in Carter V. Canada, created a tremendous burst of hope.
The federal government — Harper’s Tories at the time — was ordered to rewrite legislation within a year to allow for medically assisted death that would comply with the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As you know, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals came to power within that year and were granted a four-month extension. They struck an all-party parliamentary committee, including MPs and senators, to examine the issue and come back with recommendations.
Following an exhaustive survey and a careful analysis of the Supreme Court decision, the committee produced a detailed and thoughtful report including 21 recommendations that only served to give advocates even more hope that their goal would be achieved.
And then, last week, the Liberals introduced their bill, and that hope was replaced by despair. While the Liberals promised some progress would be made on improvements to palliative care, and the proposed legislation would shield medical practitioners including doctors, nurses and pharmacists from prosecution for their role in assisting in the act of dying, there was little else in which to take encouragement.
As the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) concluded: the bill “leaves out entire categories of suffering Canadians who should have a right to choose a safe and dignified assisted death.”
One great irony in the requirements of the Liberal legislation is that Kay Carter, a plaintive in this landmark decision by the court, would be excluded from legally seeking medically assisted death.
The Liberal legislation — in spite of the parliamentary committee’s recommendations to the contrary — insists that for a recipient of this assistance to end their suffering, their natural death must be “reasonably foreseeable.”
Actually what the Supreme Court required was simply “a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable.”
As the BCCLA notes, that would describe Kay Carter’s situation. She suffered from spinal stenosis and wasn’t going to die from that extremely painful illness. Death was not, however, reasonably foreseeable. She would simply go on in “intolerable and perhaps indefinite suffering.”
The Section 7 Charter right of “life, liberty and security of the person,” raised by the Supreme Court — in spite of Liberal government claims to the contrary — has simply been ignored.
In an attempt to avoid as much political risk as possible, the Liberals have kicked aside many of the committee’s recommendations. Those would include the recommendation that the legislation allow for assistance to people who have a psychiatric condition — many people with mental illnesses are quite capable of making competent decisions.
The committee also recommended that people be allowed to make an “advanced request” for a medically assisted death. That would serve folks who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or dementia but are still in the early stages of a disease that would ultimately eliminate their ability to make decisions.
You may recall the tragic case of Margaret Bentley who ended up with Alzheimer’s in an Abbotsford nursing home and whose family thought she had given advanced notice only to be thwarted in her request in a case opposed by the nursing home and the B.C. Government.
One final issue: The committee recommended that following the “first stage” of the legislation dealing with “competent adults,” within three years it should include “competent mature minors.”
None of that was supported in the Liberal’s politically risk-averse bill.
In fact, they don’t plan to even review the legislation for five years, well beyond their current mandate.
And except for a possible revolt in the Senate, or among their own members of Parliament to amend the legislation, any challenges to the legislation because it violates either the Constitution or the Charter of Rights of individuals will mean a long a legal slog.
Decisions that should more appropriately be made by a patient and a doctor will be back before the courts. Advocates like the BCCLA will have to seek out plaintiffs to represent and then start the challenge process all over again.
Meanwhile, countless thousands of Canadians and their families will continue to suffer because of a Trudeau Liberal government that decided this issue was not their hill to die on.
@allengarr
