Discussion · Government Orders
Luc Thériault Bloc Québécois
“People across the country should have fair access to advance requests for medically assisted dying. Provinces manage health care, but a total ban would likely face a challenge at the Supreme Court. Also, studies show that poverty and poor services are not the main reasons people ask for this help. We should improve living conditions, but we cannot just tell people with untreatable mental illness to keep suffering.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that Svend Robinson and Sue Rodriguez advanced the discussion on MAID in 1993 in British Columbia. I would like to say something about the constitutional nature of equitable access to advance requests throughout the country whether or not a parliament passes legislation. I would say that this could be a reasonable infringement, according to the Supreme Court, given that the provinces are responsible for providing end-of-life care. A debate could take place in provincial legislatures that do not have a law. It could even become an election issue, in which case there would surely be an appeal to the Supreme Court if a government ever opted for a total prohibition. As for structural vulnerabilities, I agree that it is absolutely essential to improve people’s living conditions, whatever those living conditions may be. If we are talking about structural vulnerabilities in relation to mental illness, a scientific study conducted by Downar and Quinn says that structural marginalization is not a key factor in requests for MAID. Here is a quote: ...according to all available indicators....they clearly refute the notion that medical assistance in dying is driven by marginalization or inadequate service delivery on a significant scale in Canada. While there may be exceptions, the anecdotal cases cited to support this claim rarely stand up to scrutiny. We are therefore in favour of better living conditions, but in the case of someone who has been suffering from mental illness for decades and who does not respond to treatment, I have a problem with someone like that being told to simply carry on suffering.”
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that Svend Robinson and Sue Rodriguez advanced the discussion on MAID in 1993 in British Columbia. I would like to say something about the constitutional nature of equitable access to advance requests throughout the country whether or not a parliament passes legislation. I would say that this could be a reasonable infringement, according to the Supreme Court, given that the provinces are responsible for providing end-of-life care. A debate could take place in provincial legislatures that do not have a law. It could even become an election issue, in which case there would surely be an appeal to the Supreme Court if a government ever opted for a total prohibition. As for structural vulnerabilities, I agree that it is absolutely essential to improve people’s living conditions, whatever those living conditions may be. If we are talking about structural vulnerabilities in relation to mental illness, a scientific study conducted by Downar and Quinn says that structural marginalization is not a key factor in requests for MAID. Here is a quote: ...according to all available indicators....they clearly refute the notion that medical assistance in dying is driven by marginalization or inadequate service delivery on a significant scale in Canada. While there may be exceptions, the anecdotal cases cited to support this claim rarely stand up to scrutiny. We are therefore in favour of better living conditions, but in the case of someone who has been suffering from mental illness for decades and who does not respond to treatment, I have a problem with someone like that being told to simply carry on suffering.