Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak about this bill at report stage. I want to take this time to share my personal experience about losing my parents and express my concerns with the bill as it currently stands.
My father passed away of a heart attack 19 years ago. This was incredibly difficult to deal with. He was there one minute, had a massive heart attack and was gone the next. While this was truly devastating, and one of the most difficult points in my life, fortunately there was no difficult decision to make, and his death was not prolonged or painful.
Six years later, my mother passed away. This was not so simple and, unfortunately, long and drawn out. My mother was diagnosed with stage four non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and 14 years ago, at the time she was diagnosed, treatment options were not as advanced as they are today. My mother's stage-four cancer diagnosis looked grim. She tried radiation and chemotherapy. Both were ineffective, as the cancer was too far gone.
We were told by doctors that stem cell treatment would be her best course of action, as the treatment proved to be 70% effective for those who completed the treatment. In my mother's case, drugs were extremely effective on her body, and after two treatments the drugs caused her to have stroke-like symptoms. Because of the effects of the drugs on her body, she was immediately withdrawn from the stem cell treatment.
After withdrawing from the treatment, my mother's condition continued to decline. Over the next few months, she would receive a blood transfusion every three weeks that gave her a bit more energy and temporarily made her feel a bit better, but we all knew this was only a band-aid solution. There came a point when my mother did not want to continue to prolong her inevitable passing. She took time to reflect and decided to stop accepting transfusions altogether.
Quickly we saw how sick she truly was, not having received her transfusions. Not long after, my mother had passed. While 13 years ago, medically assisted dying was non-existent in Canada, even if it had been, my mother would not have chosen this option, even though she said she was sick of being sick and that was the reason she stopped accepting transfusions, as she was preparing to accept the inevitable. Although she was dying, she never experienced any pain, so she had a relatively comfortable passing. Given my personal experience with losing my parents, I sympathize with people who are in this position or have loved ones in this position.
The legislation we are discussing today is problematic. Choosing medical assistance in dying is a choice that should not be thought out over weeks, months or even years, in some cases. No one should be able to make a rash decision and seek out medical assistance in dying without a wait period. Conservatives are suggesting simple amendments to the legislation to fix the many problems it has and the ethical dilemmas that may arise out of it.
Because of my personal experience, I absolutely believe Canadians who are facing situations where their death is foreseeable should have access to medical assistance in dying. However, with legislation that allows that, there must be safeguards for vulnerable sectors of the population, as well as our health care professionals, both of which Bill C-7 fails to adequately address. Since the bill was first introduced, I have heard from my constituents both for and against the legislation. Interestingly enough, of all the constituents I have heard from on this issue, no one has said to me they want the bill to be passed in its current state. Those who are for the legislation want to see it passed, but not without amendments.
I agree with them and I cannot support the bill in its current form, so let me share with the House the main points I am hearing from constituents who would like the legislation amended.
First is protecting conscience rights of health care professionals. If a doctor fundamentally disagrees with providing assisted dying, it should be acceptable for them to decline the procedure without providing a referral. If a doctor sees medically assisted dying as ethically improper, as doctors take the oath to “do no harm”, when providing a referral to a doctor who will do the procedure, the initial doctor still plays a role in the practice and we must protect their conscience rights.
Second is requiring the patient to be the one to request the information on medically assisted dying. Should someone else request information on medically assisted dying on a patient's behalf, they could feel unwanted pressure, especially if the patient has a mental disability. By not having a safeguard in the legislation, vulnerable sectors of the population are being put at risk.
Third is providing a clearer definition of foreseeable death. In its current form, the legislation fails to clearly define a foreseeable death. Could old age be seen as a foreseeable cause of death? Is that an acceptable reason for a request for medical assistance in dying? What about a disease that will likely take 10 years before someone passes?
Finally, and most importantly, is reinstating the 10-day reflection period. A person who lives to the age of 75, the average age of people who use medical assistance in dying, will have lived about 27,500 days. A 10-day reflection period to ensure they are ready to go is not just recommended, but it is essential.
I would like to bring up another personal point. When my grandfather reached 80 years of age, he stated many times what a good, healthy life he had and that at this time he was more than ready to accept his passing. It took another 16 years before my grandfather passed away. In that time, when he was 91, his hip broke and because of his advanced age we thought for sure that this would be the end. It was not. He was 96 when his other hip broke and that led to his passing.
Even though he had a very long and relatively healthy life, in his final years, his body was slowly deteriorating. He had macular degeneration and was legally blind. In his advanced years, he was essentially deaf. Even though he was physically able to manoeuvre on his own abilities, he said many times that being blind and deaf makes for a very long day. In this situation, would this be grounds for him to choose medically assisted dying simply because of his old age?
In reading this bill, several questions come to mind that I believe the government has not addressed in the legislation.
Can one consent in advance to be euthanized once one reaches a state one fears but which one has never experienced, like living with advanced dementia?
Once a person has signed an advance request and has lost capacity to consent to medical treatment, at what point would that person be euthanized?
Even if a person has signed an advance request and lost capacity, should a physician, before euthanizing the patient, try to determine whether the patient is currently suffering intolerably and desires to die? In its current form, Bill C-7 has no such requirement.
If a non-capable person seems to resist a lethal injection, can the physician, nevertheless, proceed with the injection if the physician believes that the resistance is not due to any understanding on the patient's part that the injection will kill them? In its current form, Bill C-7 says that apparent resistance means a doctor must not proceed, but clarifies that involuntary response to contact is not resistance.
That raises another question. How does a doctor determine if the response to contact is involuntary?
With all this being said, in its current form, I cannot support the legislation. I certainly hope, for the sake of all Canadians who may wish to consider medical assistance in dying, the government accepts the Conservative Party's amendments to the legislation. I look forward to questions.
