Assisted-dying bill a cruel compromise

When it comes to assisted dying, which has more support from Canadians than running large deficits or legalizing marijuana, Prime Minister Trudeau has lost his political perspective. He has retreated to an uncaring and muddled compromise.

The Liberal’s assisted dying legislation is deeply flawed, destined to be challenged in the courts and being rushed through the House.

Assisted dying advocates, backbench Liberal MPs and senators are speaking out against Bill C-14. So far, Trudeau has ignored their concerns. If this legislation is passed by the House unamended, it will fall to the Senate to make it more patient and Charter-friendly.

During the election the Liberals promised to, “Appoint a special committee to consider the ruling of the Supreme Court, consult with experts and Canadians and make recommendations for a legislative framework that respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the priorities of Canadians.”

A Special Joint Committee of 16 MPs and senators was established. Extensive hearings were held. Polling showed eight out of 10 Canadians agreed that individuals suffering grievous and irremediable medical conditions should have access to medically assisted dying.

The Special Committee’s recommendations are empathetic, thoughtful and inclusive.

Patients with mental illnesses should not be excluded solely on the basis of their medical diagnosis. Long mandatory waiting periods are unwarranted. Requests from mature/competent minors should be considered.

In cases like dementia, advanced directives should be allowed.

The government’s Bill C-14 doesn’t include any of these recommendations. It restricts assisted death to consenting, mentally competent adults who are in “an advanced stage of irreversible decline” from a serious and incurable disease, illness or disability, and for whom a natural death is “reasonably foreseeable.”

Theses conditions are considerably more restrictive than those laid out by the Supreme Court last year. The court ruled that physician-assisted death should be available to consenting adults with “grievous and irremediable” medical conditions and who are enduring physical or mental suffering that they find “intolerable.”

There are serious issues with what the bill says — and doesn’t say.

First, the bill substitutes the word “incurable” for the court’s word “irremediable.” They don’t mean the same thing.

An irremediable condition is one where the patient is suffering intolerable pain but doesn’t want to endure the prolonged prescribed treatments. Patients who have cancers that are “curable” — but involve endless cycles of painful chemotherapy and radiation, leaving them disabled — cannot apply under the bill.

Second, the bill introduces the vague requirement that the patient’s death must be “reasonably foreseeable.” The court didn’t say the patient’s condition must be terminal or foreseeable. And, what does foreseeable mean? Weeks, months, years?

This provision eliminates someone who has lost their eyesight and legs to diabetes and will suffer horrific pain for years. Or a patient with ALS who is slowly and painfully being paralyzed by their body until they finally die of asphyxiation.

Even B.C.’s Kay Carter, who’s suffering with spinal stenosis was central to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, would not have qualified under this legislation. Her condition wasn’t terminal even though she was bedridden, unable to move or feed herself and enduring intolerable suffering year after year.

Third, the bill does not allow for people with competence-declining conditions to make advanced requests for an assisted death. This, despite studies that consistently find the vast majority of Canadians agree that patients with early dementia should be able to consent to assisted death in advance.

Thousands of Canadians worry about losing the mental ability to make their own decisions. They’re afraid of dying a prolonged and terrifying death this legislation ignores.

In support of the bill Trudeau said, “It’s a responsible first step.” Is it? The government isn’t pioneering in an unknown field.

There is international experience on which to draw: the thorough airing by the Supreme Court; the findings of the 11 Provinces and Territories Advisory Group; the Special Joint Committee hearings and recommendations; the Quebec experience, and, consistently deep support from Canadians of every political stripe.

The current legislation is not patient-centred. It doesn’t comply with the Supreme Court’s decision. Nor does it respect the Charter rights of Canadians.

There is still time to remedy these serious shortcomings. R. Michael Warren is a patron of Dying with Dignity Canada, a former corporate director, Ontario deputy minister, TTC chief general manager and Canada Post CEO. r.michael.warren@gmail.com