After weeks of heated debate, the federal government’s controversial medically assisted dying bill had worked its way to the Senate mid-way through last week. But with signs that not all senators are happy with the bill as it was drafted, amendments will likely have to be made, forcing the bill back to the House of Commons.
Members of Parliament voted 186 to 137 on Bill C-14 on May 31, sending the bill to the Senate. And it’s not just some of the senators who have expressed issues with the legislation as it’s written, with groups on both sides of the issue voicing concern.
Earlier in May, Diocese of St. Paul Bishop Paul Terrio spoke on the issue. He noted that despite the church’s clear view on suicide and medical assistance in dying, he was happy that the legislation wasn’t as “radical” as what had originally been proposed.
It had been recommended that people with mental disabilities and mature minors should not be excluded from being able to access medical assistance for dying, which were key concerns for Terrio. Also, the idea of people being able to make signed statements prior to ever having health issues was another issue the bishop was happy to see taken out of the legislation when it was introduced.
Overall, the church’s basic position on the topic remains the same.
“We receive life from God, and therefore, it’s not our decision to take life – ever,” says Terrio. But, he was pleased to see that the legislation didn’t include some of the more controversial recommendations made, adding, “An incomplete law is better than no law.”
Terrio adds he is not alone in his beliefs, pointing to the recently held March for Life in Edmonton on May 12. He says the annual event always draws a crowd, but this year, he was surprised by the ages of attendees.
“There were so many young people, I couldn’t believe it,” says the bishop. He notes that although the walk’s focus on anti-abortion is different from Bill C-14, the overall pro-life message is still the same.
Following some drama in the House of Commons in May, Lakeland MP Shannon Stubbs said more time should have been given to the right to die legislation, and the Liberal government should have asked for an extension to the Supreme Court’s June 6 deadline to have a law in place.
“There’s a lot of frustration from many of the members,” says Stubbs. She adds that the legislation is “literally about life and death,” and it proved to be a highly charged topic.
Stubbs felt there wasn’t enough time allotted to hear the voice of constituents on the topic, along with properly weighing the risks and ensure safeguards were in place to protect the most vulnerable.
Stubbs says the Conservative members proposed a number of amendments, such as safeguarding minors and those with mental illnesses. Protecting health care professionals was also high on the list for Stubbs.
She noted that voting on Bill C-14 was likely one of the most “solemn and significant decisions” the majority of currently serving MPs would have to make in their entire careers.
Dying with Dignity is a group that supports the notion, “It’s your life. It’s you choice,” but even it has spoken out against Bill C-14, saying it cannot in good conscience support the legislation.
The group says, “The clause in Bill C-14 limiting assisted death to Canadians whose ‘natural death is reasonably foreseeable’ will deny access to assisted dying to all but the terminally ill. It risks violating the rights of Canadians with advanced degenerative illnesses like ALS who are suffering intolerably but whose deaths aren’t necessarily imminent.”
Further, the group believes the legislation discriminates against individuals based on their diagnoses and excludes individuals from accessing their right to die with the help of a doctor.
“Without the option to make advance requests for assisted dying, Canadians with dementia, or other degenerative illnesses that rob patients of their competence, will be effectively excluded from access. This is completely unacceptable and goes against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling on physician-assisted dying,” says the group’s website.
Dying with Dignity Canada believes that “no new law is far better than this bad legislation.”
Last week, the Government of Alberta introduced a motion on medical assistance in dying, as a way to begin debate on the topic, in particular to discuss the particular checks and balances needed to ensure access, while also protecting Albertans, according to a government media release.
“The government will hear from opposition members before moving forward with a regulatory framework based on the Supreme Court of Canada decision and guided by the proposed federal legislation,” says the release.
On Wednesday, Lac La Biche-St. Paul-Two Hills Wildrose MLA Dave Hanson spoke on the motion, asking for it to be withdrawn.
Hanson noted that although he wasn’t originally planning on speaking on the motion, “But due to the way this motion has been presented, I feel compelled to speak out against it.”
Hanson spoke about his own personal experience and watching his dad suffer from Alzheimer’s 15 years ago. “We watched a once extremely intelligent man deteriorate to the point that he actually forgot how to swallow . . . by the time you closed the door, he had forgotten you were there.”
This spring, Hanson also lost his mother, and she also had medical issues.
“She signed a personal directive denying any intervention at all. She passed quietly, under her own terms, surrounded by family.”
Albertans don’t all have the same access to the same level of palliative care in all areas of this province, “and I think that is a failure,” said Hanson. Overall, every case is different.
Hanson noted that both of his children are involved in the medical field, and he would not want to see either of them legislated into making decisions, and participating against their will.
“This is a far too complicated issue to take lightly . . . We can’t afford not to get this right.”
Although it was likely too late in the process, Hanson still recommended the motion be withdrawn.
Sarah Hoffman, Minister of Health spoke on the topic last week, saying, “We’ve consulted extensively with the medical community, many stakeholders and the public regarding medical assistance in dying. We have heard them, and our next step is an open and public debate in our Legislature on this deeply personal issue. We will then move forward with a regulatory framework that strikes an appropriate balance between individuals’ right to access, conscience rights, the need to protect vulnerable individuals and the safety of patients.”
Those speaking in favour of the motion noted a survey that had been responded to by 15,000 Albertans, while opposition members pointed out that realistically, this was a very small portion of the population and more consultation with Albertans was needed.
“I want to represent the opinions of the constituency, not my own personal feeling on the matter,” said Hanson to the Journal, last week. Hanson was concerned about the timing and short debate time, and lack of opportunity to discuss the matter with the community.
