The
Liberal government is preparing to table new legislation around
doctor-assisted death to try and meet a June 6, 2016 deadline imposed by
the Supreme Court of Canada. (Shaun Best/Reuters)
By Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press Posted: Apr 08, 2016
The Trudeau government won't be taking a permissive approach to
medically assisted dying in new legislation to be unveiled as early as
next week, The Canadian Press has learned.
Sources, who aren't authorized to speak publicly about the imminent
bill, say it won't adopt some of the most controversial recommendations
from a special parliamentary committee.
- Should 'mature minors' have right to die?
- Doctors plead ignorance on assisted death
- Report recommends mentally ill have right to die
That committee urged the government in February to place few obstacles
in front Canadians who want medical help to end their suffering.
The legislation, likely to be introduced late next week, is expected to
stipulate that only competent adults should be eligible to receive a
doctor's help to end their lives.
No advance requests for dementia
It will not allow people diagnosed with competence-impairing conditions
like dementia to make advance requests for medical help to die, which
the committee advocated.
Nor will it include mature minors, to whom the committee recommended
extending the right to choose assisted death within three years.
In rejecting those recommendations, the government appears to be
sticking to the strict letter of a Supreme Court ruling, which concluded
last year that Canada's ban on assisted suicide violates the right to
life, liberty and security of the person.
The court gave the federal government until Feb. 6, 2016, — later
extended to June 6 — to come up with a new law that recognizes the right
of clearly consenting adults who are enduring intolerable physical or
mental suffering to seek medical help in ending their lives.
The parliamentary committee, by contrast, tried to encompass what
Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, the committee chair, described as the "spirit"
of the court ruling, anticipating future charter challenges that could
arise if the new law is too restrictive.
Competent to consent?
On that score, the committee concluded that denying those with dementia
the right to make advance directives would mean leaving them "to suffer
or end their lives prematurely" while still sufficiently competent to
consent.
"This situation was exactly what the (Supreme Court) decision sought to avoid," the committee's final report said.
Similarly, the committee noted that the top court has already recognized
the right of mature minors to make some end-of-life decisions and
expressed concern that denying them the right to medically assisted
death would violate their charter rights.
Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould is expected to table new
legislation on doctor-assisted death that will be less permissive than
what was recommended by a parliamentary committee. (CP/Fred Chartrand)
The committee also recommended that a new law should apply to Canadians
enduring intolerable suffering from grievous and irremediable medical
conditions, including terminal and non-terminal physical and
psychological conditions.
The new law is expected to spell out more stringent eligibility
criteria. Although sources say it will not require that an illness be
terminal, the legislation is expected to be particularly cautious about
psychological conditions.
Protecting the vulnerable
Critics of the parliamentary committee's permissive approach, including
Conservative MPs, have argued that people with mental illnesses are
particularly vulnerable and need to be protected from coercion or making
life-and-death choices while not competent. They've urged the
government to require psychiatric assessments for anyone seeking a
medically assisted death.
The federal legislation is also expected to affirm that doctors have the
right to refuse to provide assisted death but it will leave it to the
provinces to figure out how to ensure that doesn't leave some Canadians
without access to the service.
The committee recommended that conscientious objectors be required to
provide "effective" referral for patients to another doctor who would
help them.
