The Bill’s prescribed conditions included in the bill somewhat temper its potential scope as the require that the person wishing assistance in dying: must be 18 years of age andor older; over, be either terminally ill or suffering from severe physical or mental pain with no prospect of relief,; make two requests, ast least 10 days apart, while "appearing to be lucid," to a doctor or aider,; and must also designate someone who will act on his or her behalf vis-à-vis the doctor or aider should he or she become mentally incapacitated. Under the Bill, tThe "aider": must be either a medical practitioner or someone who is assisted by a medical practitioner,; must have received confirmation of the diagnosis from another doctor, or from two doctors if the aider is not a doctor,; must be a member of, or assisted by, a provincial health services team,; must act in the manner requested by the person wishing to die,; and must provide the coroner with the confirmation of diagnosis.

Assessment:

It is expected that this bill will raise considerable public attention and controversy as it touches upon such profound issues as life and death, which for many involves religious beliefs.

The Bill has far-reaching implications in the manner in which it alters the current state of the law and in the way it will impact on medical ethics and practice. The Bill also appears to exceed the parameters of current public views. While many Canadians may not disapprove of permitting those who suffer from severe physical pain with no prospect of relief to access assistance in dying, few would tolerate the idea of allowing those who suffer from severe mental pain with no prospect of relief to have the same access to assisted death. As "mental pain" is not defined in the Bill, such common conditions as chronic depression could potentially qualify as "mental pain". This particular aspect of the proposal, combined with such vague terms as "while appearing to be lucid" as the requisite criterion for providing consent, raise concerns with respect to s. 7 and s. 15 of the Charter. The recognized medical and legal standard for providing a free and informed consent is not reflected in Bill C-407.

In order to guard against the potential to move towards what is often described as the "slippery slope" in facilitating the unwanted death of elderly, physically or mentally vulnerable persons, a very stringent regime would have to be introduced, and Bill C-407 falls short of accomplishing this. For example, Bill C-407 lacks an appropriate oversight mechanism to guard against abuses. The Bill does not require detailed reporting or establish a committee to review reports as is found in comparable legislation implemented in Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium, nor does the Bill does address how to deal with cases of abuse, e.g. by creating a specific offence.

The bBill also addresses matters that fall within provincial/territorial responsibilities for the delivery of health care services and the medical profession, and provincial legislation that deals with substitute decision makers. Extensive consultations with interested groups, including the medical profession, and Canadians in general should be undertaken by Parliament before it considers a specific legislative proposal, although Parliament did examine these issues in detail in 1994 and 1995 in the context of the study conducted by the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. It should be noted that the majority recommended that the Criminal Code offence of assisted suicide should remain intact.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, in a communication to Liberal MPs, has stated that he does not support Bill C-407.

The reasons he sets forth for his decision are exactly in line with arguments made by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC).

First, the Cotler memorandum notes that the "Bill has far-reaching implications in the manner in which it alters the current state of the law and in the way it will impact on medical ethics and practice." Perhaps Minister Cotler is aware of the threat this sort of legislation holds for a society that seeks to be compassionate toward the vulnerable. This position also raises the point of improving the provision of palliative care services, a dire necessity in Canada.

Second, he acknowledges that C-407 touches issues of life and death, as well as faith issues that will be extremely controversial in Canada.

Finally, the memorandum cautions: "In order to guard against the potential to move towards what is often described as the ‘slippery slope’ in facilitating the unwanted death of elderly, physically or mentally vulnerable persons, a very stringent regime would have to introduced, and Bill C-407 falls short of accomplishing this. It continues "Bill C-407 lacks an appropriate mechanism to guard against abuses [and] does not require detailed reporting or establish a committee to review reports as is found in comparable legislation in Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium, not does the Bill does [sic] address how to deal with cases of abuse, e.g. by creating a specific offence."

Nevertheless, despite the Minister’s decision not to support Bill C-407, it seems clear from the memorandum that Mr. Cotler would be interested in a more comprehensively drafted bill legalizing assisted suicide – one that takes into consideration the issues he raises. He also considers the fact that many Canadians support the notion of assisted suicide in principle, especially when it comes to physical suffering for the terminally ill.

In addition, Mr. Cotler has been quoted as being interested in reviving the discussion in Canada concerning assisted suicide.

All of these statements made by the Justice Minister should be of grave concern to Canadians who believe in caring for vulnerable people, not killing them.

There is little doubt that a motion or new legislation concerning euthanasia or assisted suicide will be introduced in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Whether that will be at the behest of this government or the next one remains to be seen.

This victory for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and other supporting groups is important to celebrate, but is only a temporary victory. We need to make sure that Bill C-407 is roundly defeated and we need to continue to convince members of parliament that due to human nature, and the need of vulnerable persons, the only effective safeguard to protect vulnerable Canadians is keeping euthanasia and assisted suicide a crime, while providing excellent hospice/palliative care and support for all Canadians.