Analysis · beta

Michael Cooper

Replying to Luc Thériault (Bloc Québécois)
“Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that advance requests were the flagship recommendation of the first joint special committee. No one opposed them except, of course, my colleague and the Conservatives. I would like to point out to him that the very principle of an advance request is to be able to work with a health care team to establish the threshold of what is tolerable, in other words, the criteria beyond which a person does not wish to continue their end-of-life in a state of deterioration that can ultimately lead to a level of stiffness akin to rigor mortis. Often, people do not die from Alzheimer’s. They die from a host of concomitant illnesses. The bill states that all of this must be assessed in accordance with best practices. Does my colleague fully understand that, in a sense, his reasoning is not ethical and his objections are not ethical, but rather purely legalistic, based on a theological foundation?”

Not analysed yet

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

Madam Speaker, contemporaneous consent and issues around the ability to withdraw, or the inability to withdraw in the case of advance requests, which are fundamental to fully informed consent, are not legalistic issues. Yes, there is a legal element to it, but these are profound ethical questions around whether advance requests can be implemented safely. The member spoke of the Special Joint Committee on MAID. All I can say is that there was a very limited, cursory review of the issue of advance requests at that committee, which studied multiple issues.