Analysis · beta

Marc Dalton

Replying to Luc Thériault (Bloc Québécois)
“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that he thought it was immoral for a person who is not terminally ill to have access to MAID. However, Bill C-14 was inconsistent with the Carter decision. Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor were not terminally ill. They were approaching the terminal phase of their illness. Being terminally ill does not mean that death is imminent or that a person is not already experiencing intolerable and irremediable suffering. The Supreme Court is of the opinion that creating a blanket exclusion for people who are not terminally ill but who are suffering infringes on the right to life because it forces them to cut their life short rather than allowing them to determine when their suffering has become intolerable. What people want is to live as long as possible, up to the limit of what they can tolerate. That is what MAID allows for in cases that are not related to a reasonably foreseeable natural death. As a legislator, how can my colleague promote a bill that is unconstitutional?”

Not analysed yet

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about what is already the law. What we are discussing now is whether MAID should be available to people whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness, and there is broad agreement in this House that it should not be. However, the debate primarily focuses on end-of-life decisions for persons with Alzheimer’s disease, for example, or other similar health problems.