I thank all the witnesses for their testimony this morning.
Mr. Foley, your testimony is pretty moving and troubling.
In a debate like this one, there must absolutely be no confusion in the concepts. Yet the criterion of reasonably predictable natural death has been problematic for practitioners.
As of 2015, a terminally ill patient in Quebec receiving palliative care could decide to request medical assistance in dying. Improvements still must be made to palliative care. It is one thing to call for better conditions for patients, but it is another to encroach on their free will and take away their freedom to choose. Paternalism must be avoided.
An individual's dignity is not based on their physical or psychological autonomy—in other words, their cognitive abilities. Those factors contribute to autonomy. Dignity is based on the respect of an individual's moral autonomy, and the respect of an individual's moral autonomy is rooted in the respect of their freedom of choice and their ability to exercise their self-determination. In biomedical terms, this is called free and enlightened consent.
Mr. Foley did not end up in a situation of free and enlightened consent, and he is before the courts. I will stop here because I don't want to comment on that specific situation. That is not what we are discussing this morning. This is rather about providing a choice to individuals already in an irreversible process or terminally ill. I'm thinking of people like Ms. Gladu, who has not yet exercised her right to die with dignity. However, she said she at a meeting that she was already relieved and was suffering a bit less because she now had that choice, which was previously taken away from her.
However, things should not be confused. On the one hand, there are suicidal patients. We are talking about a reversible state, and society should in fact fight against suicide. On the other hand, there are requests for medical assistance in dying from humans who have led a full and complete life. Mr. Foley told us he was living a full and complete life, even though he is now somewhat more limited. Since the patient comes first, it is up to them to make the decision.
Ms. Carr, are you against that principle?