First of all, I want to point out that Jean Truchon was presenting himself for a medically assisted death because he couldn't get a good life, and that was very clear in the proceedings. He was forced to live in an institution. He didn't want to live there. His life was not good. There were multiple attempts for him to live in other places and have a better life, and nobody seemed to be able to get him out of that place. That's how he ended up there in the first place, and that's the thing we lose quite a bit when we talk about the Truchon decision.
The second thing is about the rights piece. We talk about this being all about autonomy, all about individual choice and decision, but it is a balance of autonomy rights and equality rights. That's what section 1 of the charter is for. We say that we can violate autonomy rights if it's for the public good.
We have to keep in mind that for people with a disability, this is not a choice. Every day of their lives, the lives that they are forced to live because of inadequate supports, poverty and society depriving them of inclusion, causes their suffering. That suffering could be remedied through many, many other means, but because we don't respond and governments don't provide the supports, and communities and society don't include people, they're forced into situations in which they feel they have no choice.
Sure, they're presented with options. For example, the bill says we need to let people know what services are available, but letting people know what's available doesn't get them services and supports; it doesn't get them off wait-lists; it doesn't get them out of institutions; it doesn't make their lives better. Until we're committed to making sure that everybody has the opportunity, an equal opportunity, to live a good life, medically assisted death on the basis of disability is not the solution.