Analysis · beta

Jamil Jivani

Replying to Garnett Genuis (Conservative)
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to, as my colleague has, drill into the practical aspects of advance directives, not just the theoretical questions around it. Some people who think, in theory, that advance consent makes sense, I think would maybe be chastened by some of these practical realities. A person can get a diagnosis for something that is very frightening and also something that they have not yet experienced. They do not have any lived experience with having that illness, but they know it is coming or they know it is on the way. They are potentially presented with a worst-case scenario. There are many cases of this where people kind of catastrophize what has been presented to them in the process of encouraging them to sign something or accept facilitated death. Hypothetically, based not on someone’s lived experience but fear of the future, they sign a document and their real experience of living with that condition may be very different from that expectation. However, it is others in their life, like doctors or family members, who have to decide whether what a person signed a year ago fits with their present expressed experience. Do these practical realities not raise serious problems for the implementation of something like advance directives?”

Not analysed yet

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of concerns, as he accurately raised. We hear from the government terms like “safeguards” to give the impression that there are appropriate safeguards already in place in the euthanasia regime in this country. I would never cite the United Nations in almost any other circumstance but since we have a government that likes to appeal to international organizations like it, the United Nations has said these safeguards are not appropriate. Track 2 euthanasia is already wreaking havoc on people in very different circumstances than the government initially intended it to target. The safeguards do not work and believing that an expansion of euthanasia is going to be controlled by pre-existing failed safeguards makes absolutely no sense.