Analysis · beta

Andrew Lawton

Replying to Garnett Genuis (Conservative)
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his excellent work on this important issue. He has spoken a lot in the context of this issue about hope, about people finding hope, about people recovering and about people being able to continue their lives under new circumstances. I think that relates to the point about advance requests. In the last report on MAID in Canada, 692 people made a request for MAID and then changed their mind. That can happen in the absence of advance directives, but under an advance directives framework, if someone signs an advance directive and then loses capacity or is simply not told before a health care practitioner takes their life, then there is no opportunity for them to change their mind. It is clear in the legislation that if a person actively resists, the process is supposed to stop, but a health care practitioner is not required to inform them of what they are about to do. There is no such requirement. How does that take into consideration the almost 700 people who changed their mind?”

Not analysed yet

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the problem here. Because so much is being left to how this system would be implemented, we do not actually know what safeguards in practice, if any, would exist. I will note as well that the lack of an expiration for advance requests is a key problem. Conceivably, someone could live with a diagnosis for 10 to 15 years, which means an advance request could collect dust on a shelf for that long as well. I know there have been cases where people had signed up at one point to be organ donors and later regretted it. There is a litany of problems with this that need to be dealt with.