Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would first like to thank the committee members for offering me the opportunity to tell them about my experience and my observations concerning medical assistance in dying.
I have been a family and palliative care physician for 37 years. I was an expert witness on medical assistance in dying and palliative care at the trial of Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon in 2019. The other details about myself are in the 18-page brief I filed with the committee earlier. The brief contains a number of references to various documents and reports that I invite you to consult. In it, I refer to the current situation and address the issue of expanding access to mental health for minors and, more specifically, of advance requests after a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease or other major neurocognitive disorders.
After more than six years' experience with medical assistance in dying in Quebec and nearly as long in Canada, there is a clear finding that the famous slippery slope promised by opponents has never happened and that medical assistance in dying is administered stringently and in complete compliance with the law.
Medical assistance in dying is a form of medical, moral, ethical, legitimate and perfectly legal care. There is no conflict between medical assistance in dying and palliative care; quite the contrary. With palliative sedation and refusal of treatment, these are interrelated and complementary end of life options, the choice of which belongs exclusively to a patient who is competent and well informed. In Quebec, approximately 80 per cent of patients who died after receiving medical assistance in dying were already receiving palliative care. The remaining 20 per cent refused palliative care, and were perfectly entitled to do so.
I am now going to talk about Alzheimer disease and advance requests. This is the first expansion of access that has long been awaited by an undeniable majority of the public and on which there is a broad consensus. Two Canada-wide surveys conducted in 2019 and 2021, respectively, that are referred to in my brief, showed that 85 per cent of Quebeckers and 80 per cent of Canadians wanted directives of this kind.
In Quebec, a group of independent experts retained by the government to study the issue from ethical, clinical and legal perspectives worked for two years, from 2017 to 2019, and submitted a report that recommended, at the end of a remarkable exercise in consideration and documentation, that advance requests be made available. The reference to their exhaustive report, in French and English, is available in my brief. On that subject, my brief also gives references to the Quebec forum that was held in January 2020 and to the report of the special committee of the Quebec government that was submitted in December 2021 and also recommended instituting advance requests.
I refer to a survey of physicians and the public done by the Collège des médecins du Québec, and most importantly to the position of the Collège, approved by its board of directors in December 2021, regarding advance requests, mental health and minors.
I comment at length on happy dementia, which is sometimes cited by certain people to oppose advance directives, and in my brief I propose a mechanism and safeguarding measures to put in place that are based on the choice, by the person themself, of observable and objective signs of the seriousness of the illness when the person reaches the stage of incapacity, and not on a clinical stage. These directives must absolutely be mandatory and not subject to veto by family, as is already the case for mandates in the event of incapacity, wills, and, in Quebec, the Registre des directives médicales anticipées.
Advance requests have to be made accessible to avoid some patients with Alzheimer disease committing suicide. That is a little known fact, but it happens. I am thinking of the stories of three public personalities.
On the question of vulnerability, I refer to the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec in the Gladu and Truchon case. The Court heard numerous experts over two months, analyzed voluminous evidence, and concluded as follows:
1. Medical assistance in dying as practised in Canada is a strict and rigorous process that, in itself, displays no obvious weakness 2. The physicians involved are able to assess the patients’ capacity to consent and identify signs of ambivalence, mental disorders affecting or likely to affect the decision-making process, or cases of coercion or abuse; 3. The vulnerability of a person requesting medical assistance in dying must be assessed exclusively on a case-by-case basis, according to the characteristics of the person and not based on a reference group of so-called “vulnerable persons”. Beyond the various factors of vulnerability that physicians are able to objectify or identify, the patient’s ability to understand and to consent is ultimately the decisive factor, in addition to the other legal criteria;
I invite you to read that remarkable judgment, which is available in English.
On the subject of mental health, I address the reasons, based on experts' reports, why mental health cannot be excluded from eligibility. It is important now that we consider the guidelines to be put in place, before the expiry of the deadline for Bill C‑7.
To conclude, on the question of minors, I again rely in my brief on the position of the Collège des médecins du Québec, which I endorse in its entirety, on experience since 2002 in Belgium and the Netherlands, in particular with its Groningen Protocol, and on the 2018 document of the Canadian Pediatric Society. That society conducted a survey of Canadian pediatricians that clearly shows that pediatricians here receive requests for medical assistance in dying and discuss this subject with young people and their parents.
I illustrate this with a situation that occurred in Quebec. Last year, a young man died at the age of 17 years and nine months of a very aggressive cancer and he would have liked to receive medical assistance in dying. He was unable to get access to that because he was three months short of being entitled to it.
Thank you again for inviting me to appear before the committee.
I am available to answer your questions or any questions you might have after reading my brief.