Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Back to the statement

Analysis · beta

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative on Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act

Replying to Luc Thériault (Bloc Québécois)
“Madam Speaker, I am going to quote the Carter decision, and I would like my colleague to tell me whether she agrees with this statement. This said, we do not agree that the existential formulation of the right to life requires an absolute prohibition on assistance in dying, or that individuals cannot “waive” their right to life. This would create a “duty to live”, rather than a “right to life”, and would call into question the legality of any consent to the withdrawal or refusal of lifesaving or life-sustaining treatment. The sanctity of life is one of our most fundamental societal values. Section 7 is rooted in a profound respect for the value of human life. But s. 7 also encompasses life, liberty and security of the person during the passage to death. It is for this reason that the sanctity of life “is no longer seen to require that all human life be preserved at all costs”. What does my colleague think about that?”

Not analysed yet

A requested analysis is usually ready within half an hour; come back to this page or reload it.

Madam Speaker, extreme procedures for extending life do not have to be performed if people do not want them to be performed. It is not a sin to reject special treatment to extend life. Now, in terms of the other topic, I would say the vast majority of people in my riding value life and compassion to the point of, instead of even thinking about MAID, they would rather put their money, their time and their volunteer hours into hospices to make sure that, when somebody passes, they do so in comfort rather than having the process sped up. That is because people from where I come from, including myself, believe in miracles.