FLAWED LAW NEEDS A FIX
Canadians conflicted over right to die
My father is 83 and has an older brother with dementia who can’t recognize those who love him, much less reality.
Given his excellent physical health, my dad lives in fear of that happening to him, and being kept alive in oblivion for a decade or more.
My mother’s death before the medical assistance in dying law came into effect haunts him. He was forced to watch her die in hospital from cancer, unconscious, doped with morphine to suppress the agony, her laboured breathing a soundtrack from hell. To this day, my father remains enraged: “You wouldn’t let a dog die like that. Why would you let it happen to someone you love?”
If the time comes, and the law would condemn him to his nightmare, he contemplates taking matters into his own hands.
A quarter of a century after Sue Rodriguez put a B.C. face on the need for medical assistance in dying, commonly called MAID, Canadians continue wrestling with the issue.
Rodriguez, who had ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), or Lou Gehrig’s disease, died Feb. 12, 1994 at home in North Saanich after taking an overdose of morphine and secobarbital. She was 43 years old.
Back then, we were ready to jail for as long as 14 years anyone who helped her.
In February 2015 — only five years ago — the Supreme Court of Canada struck down that law for violating the Constitution and Parliament passed new legislation in June 2016 authorizing MAID.
Now the law sets out eligibility criteria, but also imposes “safeguards” for doctors and nurse practitioners to decide if a patient qualifies. In particular, the patient must be fully informed and freely giving consent.
Since then, nearly 7,000 Canadians have used MAID, the government says.
Still, the law is flawed — and the Superior Court of Quebec on Sept. 11 gave Ottawa until March 11 to broaden access to MAID so it’s available to more people than only those facing foreseeable death.
The federal government decided not to appeal the ruling, but was hampered in responding because the decision came down as the federal election campaign started. Hence, the launch Monday of a quick two-week consultation (until Jan. 27) with an online questionnaire.
Regardless, Parliament was about to conduct a review of the law built into the original legislation.
It’s time to get it right, though the country remains seriously conflicted.
As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau noted during the campaign: “When it comes to an issue that is so important, so delicate, so difficult for so many families, the government needs to make sure we’re getting the balance right.”
Updating the law will expand eligibility for MAID beyond people who are nearing the end of life and possibly result in other changes that are going to rile opponents.
The Conservatives wanted the Quebec decision appealed so the Supreme Court of
Canada could weigh in with leader Andrew Scheer raising concerns about “vulnerable” Canadians, which is code for the need to keep the right to MAID tightly restricted.
There are three key issues: how to allow those who know their mental competence is deteriorating to give prior consent for MAID; whether to give those under 18 who are mature enough the right to choose death; and, how to deal with those suffering from mental illness who are incapable of providing fully informed consent.
Quebec recently said it would allow advance consent for those with diseases like Alzheimer’s.
Horrified by the example of the Netherlands and Belgium’s
liberal approach, however, MAID critics are concerned those allowed to end their life might include depressed teenagers or the physically challenged in the grip of a bout of hopelessness.
Religion continues to bleed into the public square and believers continue to assert the transcendent value of suffering and the sanctity of human life.
Some religiously run hospices have even told patients who want MAID to move out before they move on. Compassionate? Hardly.
It is trite to say this issue affects everyone and every family.
Like Rodriguez, my lover developed a syndrome, progressive supranuclear palsy, that slowly robbed her of muscle control, speech, her ability to chew and swallow. Watching a beautiful, vibrant, social person slowly wither and become locked-in was harrowing.
The law exacerbated the pain because what mattered was not how long did she want to go on, but the growing risk she could lose the ability to communicate.
She couldn’t give prior consent for MAID to be activated in case she fell into a coma or otherwise lost the ability to communicate.
She could say in advance do not resuscitate, but to receive MAID, a person must expressly confirm consent immediately before it is administered.
She dreaded the image of being locked in and kept alive.
For those whose condition may similarly worsen to the point where they can’t confirm consent before their chosen date, the law may also cause them to leave earlier than they want to.
No one should have to deal with such thoughts.
Please use this opportunity to tell the government to fix the law: It takes only a few minutes.