Let Parliament start debate on doctor-assisted dying
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a unanimous judgment striking down the ban on physician-assisted dying. Death, and the ways in which it touches our lives, is not easily discussed. In the few short weeks that have passed, I’ve had many difficult conversations with those who applaud — and those who condemn — the court’s decision.
The ruling applies only to competent adults with enduring, intolerable suffering, who clearly give consent to a physician-assisted death, but even within that scope, Canadians have different — and strongly held — opinions and beliefs. Mine is informed by the experience of caring for my father in his final days. It is my personal belief that we need our laws to uphold the Supreme Court’s ruling because it is the right thing to do. We need to hear from others. Whether they are informed by religious conviction, personal experience or professional expertise, Canadians’ voices deserve to be heard.
Moreover, if we are to have a respectful, responsible discussion on this important issue, we need sufficient time to hear from Canadians — from the patients who will be affected by the legislation, from their families, from medical and legal experts.
Understanding the nature of that process, the Supreme Court wisely provided a deadline of one year to draft legislation. With the summer recess and a fall election, parliamentarians will have barely more than 12 sitting weeks to deal with this issue.
That gives us enough time to do this, but no time to waste.
For that reason, this week, our party put forward a motion calling on the House of Commons to take immediate action. We asked that a special committee be appointed to consider the ruling of the Supreme Court, and that it consult with experts and with Canadians. This committee would make recommendations for a legislative framework that would respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadians’ priorities. The government, however, did not accept our proposal.
As Conservative MP Steven Fletcher noted, the Supreme Court’s decision has “given us a clear path” to “move forward quickly but thoughtfully.” There is no advantage to delaying debate. Indeed, given the timeline offered by the Supreme Court, if Parliament has any intention of addressing this issue before the next elec- tion, these consultations must begin immediately.
We need to have a national conversation on dying with dignity, which includes how we care with empathy and respect for those who are suffering at the end of their lives.
We must have a frank discussion about the quality of care already available, and whether there is equitable access to quality palliative care.
Quebec’s experience shows us that respectful and responsible deliberation is possible. It reminds us that when political parties set aside their differences in service of the public good, co-operation can follow.
Consensus can be found — even on an issue as complex and sensitive as end-oflife care.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on physician-assisted death was not only unanimous — it was unambiguous. It now falls upon us, as legislators, to act.
Canadians expect leadership from their elected representatives. Given that the government did not support our proposal, the prime minister now has a responsibility to share his plan with the country.
A respectful, responsible discussion on dying with dignity requires time to hear from Canadians, including patients and medical and legal experts