Discussion · Government Orders
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal
“I want us to be careful and accurate in this debate. Medical assistance in dying is for people with incurable illnesses who are suffering, and it is not the same as suicide. We should not confuse the public with oversimplified arguments, personal stories, or false comparisons.”
“Mr. Speaker, in a debate as sensitive as the one surrounding medical assistance in dying, I urge members to be thorough, to raise the standard of the debate and to ensure that we do not resort to oversimplifications that could hinder the public’s understanding of the discussions taking place this evening. At one point in my colleague’s speech, he seemed to draw a parallel between suicide and medical assistance in dying, even though we know these are two fundamentally different things. Medical assistance in dying is an option available to people living with incurable illnesses that cause significant suffering. There was also a point where my colleague spoke of commercial aspects related to medical assistance in dying. I must say I did not really understand that part. I believe we must be rigorous and ensure that we do not recount anecdotes or make false equivalencies that could hinder understanding of the debate.”
Mr. Speaker, in a debate as sensitive as the one surrounding medical assistance in dying, I urge members to be thorough, to raise the standard of the debate and to ensure that we do not resort to oversimplifications that could hinder the public’s understanding of the discussions taking place this evening. At one point in my colleague’s speech, he seemed to draw a parallel between suicide and medical assistance in dying, even though we know these are two fundamentally different things. Medical assistance in dying is an option available to people living with incurable illnesses that cause significant suffering. There was also a point where my colleague spoke of commercial aspects related to medical assistance in dying. I must say I did not really understand that part. I believe we must be rigorous and ensure that we do not recount anecdotes or make false equivalencies that could hinder understanding of the debate.