To the long list of characteristics that make Quebec such a special society, we must now add medical assistance in dying. In fact, the latter is so popular in Quebec that it seems to make it a world leader.
It is true that in Canada, Quebec was a pioneer in terms of medical assistance in dying. He treated this type of assistance as end-of-life care and argued that it was part of a kind of continuum in the provision of treatments that a patient may seek.
In the judgment Carter v. Canadahanded down in 2015 by the Supreme Court of Canada, it legitimized Quebec’s approach to medical assistance in dying, while going even further than the National Assembly of Quebec.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has authorized the assistance of a doctor in dying, in the case of a competent adult person, who clearly consents to ending their life, and who is affected by serious and irremediable health problems. causing persistent suffering which is intolerable to him in view of his condition.
A few years later, in 2019, it was the turn of the Superior Court of Quebec to partially invalidate the Quebec law on the occasion of the Truchon affair, on the basis of the excessively restrictive nature of the criterion of “ end of life “. The Superior Court did the same in the same case with the federal law, the latter having made the criterion of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” absolute.
In Bill 11, which modifies the Quebec law relating to end-of-life care, it is notably provided that people suffering from a serious and incurable illness, leading to the incapacity to consent to care, can make an advance request medical assistance in dying so that they can benefit from this assistance once they become incapacitated.
On the federal side, as of March 17, 2024, people whose only medical problem is a mental illness – and who meet all the other eligibility criteria provided for in Canadian legislation – will be eligible for medical aid. to die. Still on the federal side, we provided in a law which came into force on March 17, 2021 the possibility for patients whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable to waive, in certain very specific cases, the obligation to provide their final consent immediately before receiving medical assistance in dying.
Certainly, many questions remain unanswered, such as the admissibility of capable minors, advance requests (on the federal side), improvement of palliative care, protection of Canadians with disabilities, etc.
Widespread compassion or slippery slope?
Nevertheless, we can only note that the issue of medical assistance in dying is in full evolution, in full ascension, we dare say, going from opening to opening, from expansion to expansion. Many see this as a sign of widespread public compassion for those who seek this help. Others, probably much fewer in number, see it as a slippery slope leading to abuse of all kinds.
It is worth recalling that in the judgment Carterthe Supreme Court had insisted on the adoption by the Canadian Parliament and provincial legislatures of robust “safeguard” measures, intended to protect vulnerable people against the risks of slippage and excess which risk marking medical aid to die.
Because there are risks, indeed. We talk about it too little in Quebec and the rest of Canada. It’s a shame. This also distorts the debate.
By covering voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide with the attractive theme of “dying with dignity”, we found ourselves making fundamental questions, such as those linked to the valuation of life, less present in the public debate. or the risks of suicide being trivialized.
Let us be understood, however! We are not opposed to medical assistance in dying. In fact, this is a completely legitimate and valid option for many people. We are simply saying that the world records that Quebec is breaking in such matters should challenge us collectively, if only to seek to understand this phenomenon beyond the statistics.
Because we believe that the social choices involved in medical assistance in dying deserve more attention and that we ask ourselves, as a society, the question of knowing what we want to move towards, how far we are ready to go and what meaning we intend to give to death and life.
*The author was one of three members of the External Committee on Legislative Response Options to Carter v. Canadawhich was established by the Canadian government in 2015.
reference: www.lapresse.ca