Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Back to the statement

Analysis · beta

Arnold Viersen

Conservative on Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act

Replying to Luc Thériault (Bloc Québécois)
“Mr. Speaker, I would briefly like to mention a minor concern. I have sat on clinical ethics committees before. The last thing we would be allowed to do is make a decision based on reported cases without full and comprehensive knowledge of the situation in question. That said, I have been listening to the Conservatives since the debate started. They tell us that advance requests are not possible, even if a person is suffering, because that person could have other illnesses. It seems that they even object to advance directives. In a long-term care facility, there are different levels of care. If I have Alzheimer’s and I have a heart attack, and I am not resuscitated, I suppose they would object to that. What I want to know is what solution they have for people in declining health who are suffering, because suffering is part of it. What is the solution?”

Not analysed yet

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

Mr. Speaker, to the point on advance directives, I am not opposed to advance directives. I would just point out to the member that, in most cases, an advance directive is a refusal of treatment or not compelling somebody to treat a person. This is a completely new world of compelling a doctor to murder someone. That is what an advance directive is. When a given set of circumstances exists, laid out in an advance directive, we are compelling the health care system, a doctor or a health care practitioner, to kill a person. That is what this advance directive is. It is not a refusal of care.