The right time: compassion and dignity, please
On September 11, the same day the federal election was called, the Quebec Superior Court issued an unambiguous decision. The Quebec and federal laws on medical aid in dying had to be quickly corrected so as not to require that, in order to qualify, a person suffering terribly and without respite possible either at the end of life or that his "natural death is reasonably reasonable predictable."
The Court gave both governments six months to eliminate this test and thus comply with the February 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Carter. The highest court in the country had recognized this right to a "capable adult who (1) clearly consents to end his life; and who (2) is affected by serious and irremediable health problems (including a condition, illness or disability) causing him persistent suffering that is intolerable to him in light of his condition." Nowhere was there a question of a person at the end of his life.
The federal and Quebec governments have decided not to appeal, forcing them to comply by March 11. However, the relief felt by many patients in the aftermath of these decisions has left you in doubt in recent days. In Ottawa, Justice Minister David Lametti suggested that the federal government could request additional time and perhaps proceed with the consideration of this future amendment at the same time as the statutory revision of the legislation that is to be June.
For his part, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in an interview with The Canadian Press on Wednesday that the decision to proceed in two stages or a single volley has not yet been made. He added, however, that his intention was to "respect this decision of the Court as soon as possible."
If that is the case, his government cannot wait for the revision of the law, which would only begin in June and whose very broad scope inevitably portends a very long and complex exercise. Parliamentarians will have to address three issues that are far from consensus: advance directives, access to medical aid in dying for mature minors and access for those with health problems Mental. The debates on these three issues have nothing to do with the end-of-life test that the Superior Court is asking to be lifted, as the judgment notes.
This judgment is not surprising, as Ottawa's insertion of this end-of-life test has been challenged from the beginning because it is considered too restrictive and contrary to the right to autonomy for the sick. Even the current Minister of Justice used this reason to vote against the bill in June 2016. Many witnesses said the same thing before the parliamentary committees that studied the bill at the time. The majority of the members of the Commons Justice Committee submitted an amendment removing this requirement, but it was defeated.
The majority of senators came back with a change of their own, without further success. The government has always argued, both in Parliament and in court, that it has added this condition to protect the most vulnerable.
According to experts, there are other ways to do this than to deprive people of their right who are not dying, but who are seriously ill and unable to endure their great suffering any longer. For the time being, the Court has granted the two persons who challenged the law, Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu, the right to use it without delay, both suffering from serious and painful but not fatal degenerative diseases. However,
everyone else in a similar situation will have to wait for the law to be changed.
It is for them that the government must act without dragging its feet. It is true that he has little time to comply with the judgment, a reality well known to the Liberals who, in 2015, had only eight months to respond to the Carter decision, since the previous government had not proposed anything. It is quite possible that the slowness of the legislative process in the House of Commons and the Senate will force Ottawa to ask for a little more time to comply with the recent order of the Superior Court. The bill has not yet been announced and parliamentary business will not resume until the end of January.
Caution, however, should not be used as a pretext for procrastination. The Department of Justice has long known that this test is being challenged. It has the work of two advisory committees and a joint committee and the alternatives proposed in the House of Commons and the Senate. His lawyers aren't starting from scratch. There is therefore no reason to delay Ottawa's response beyond the spring of 2020. The only ones who would suffer would be those sick who can no longer, but who wish to die with dignity and surrounded by their own.
The Court gave both governments six months to eliminate this test and thus comply with the February 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Carter. The highest court in the country had recognized this right to a "capable adult who (1) clearly consents to end his life; and who (2) is affected by serious and irremediable health problems (including a condition, illness or disability) causing him persistent suffering that is intolerable to him in light of his condition." Nowhere was there a question of a person at the end of his life.
The federal and Quebec governments have decided not to appeal, forcing them to comply by March 11. However, the relief felt by many patients in the aftermath of these decisions has left you in doubt in recent days. In Ottawa, Justice Minister David Lametti suggested that the federal government could request additional time and perhaps proceed with the consideration of this future amendment at the same time as the statutory revision of the legislation that is to be June.
For his part, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in an interview with The Canadian Press on Wednesday that the decision to proceed in two stages or a single volley has not yet been made. He added, however, that his intention was to "respect this decision of the Court as soon as possible."
If that is the case, his government cannot wait for the revision of the law, which would only begin in June and whose very broad scope inevitably portends a very long and complex exercise. Parliamentarians will have to address three issues that are far from consensus: advance directives, access to medical aid in dying for mature minors and access for those with health problems Mental. The debates on these three issues have nothing to do with the end-of-life test that the Superior Court is asking to be lifted, as the judgment notes.
This judgment is not surprising, as Ottawa's insertion of this end-of-life test has been challenged from the beginning because it is considered too restrictive and contrary to the right to autonomy for the sick. Even the current Minister of Justice used this reason to vote against the bill in June 2016. Many witnesses said the same thing before the parliamentary committees that studied the bill at the time. The majority of the members of the Commons Justice Committee submitted an amendment removing this requirement, but it was defeated.
The majority of senators came back with a change of their own, without further success. The government has always argued, both in Parliament and in court, that it has added this condition to protect the most vulnerable.
According to experts, there are other ways to do this than to deprive people of their right who are not dying, but who are seriously ill and unable to endure their great suffering any longer. For the time being, the Court has granted the two persons who challenged the law, Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu, the right to use it without delay, both suffering from serious and painful but not fatal degenerative diseases. However,
everyone else in a similar situation will have to wait for the law to be changed.
It is for them that the government must act without dragging its feet. It is true that he has little time to comply with the judgment, a reality well known to the Liberals who, in 2015, had only eight months to respond to the Carter decision, since the previous government had not proposed anything. It is quite possible that the slowness of the legislative process in the House of Commons and the Senate will force Ottawa to ask for a little more time to comply with the recent order of the Superior Court. The bill has not yet been announced and parliamentary business will not resume until the end of January.
Caution, however, should not be used as a pretext for procrastination. The Department of Justice has long known that this test is being challenged. It has the work of two advisory committees and a joint committee and the alternatives proposed in the House of Commons and the Senate. His lawyers aren't starting from scratch. There is therefore no reason to delay Ottawa's response beyond the spring of 2020. The only ones who would suffer would be those sick who can no longer, but who wish to die with dignity and surrounded by their own.
Thank you for your visit