Thank you, through the chair.
I'll tackle the first question first and quite briefly. I can say more in writing if you wish.
There are some very significant phrases in our existing MAID law that are being overlooked. Perhaps I can give two examples. One is the meaning of the word “natural” and the phrase “natural death is reasonably foreseeable”. Reasonably foreseeable natural death is not the same thing as reasonably foreseeable death. A plain reading of the phrase signalled to me that behaviours such as voluntary starvation and other self-destructive acts do not fall within the category of reasonably foreseeable natural death. That is a distinction that is unfortunately moving people into the track one situation incorrectly and, I would suggest, unlawfully.
The other very important phrase—and this would affect both track one and track two—is the phrase “is caused by” in paragraph 241.2(2)(c). The intolerable suffering that is at the heart of MAID eligibility has to be tied directly to a medical condition. It excludes suffering, such as Professor Grant and Ms. Linton have described, that is predominantly socio-economic in nature. That is the major factor in many cases.
I believe that is contrary to paragraph 241.2(2)(c). I think clarifying these intended meanings in the way the law is drafted would go a long way towards preventing unlawful deaths and enforcing—