Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We'll continue our conversation, Dr. van Veen. I share your opinion that a person who comes to you, who has suffered for much of their life and who can't stop their suffering, can decide for themselves what they want to do in consultation with their doctor.
The latest report by Canadian experts that we saw shows that, given the fairly tight criteria, it's almost impossible for a 30‑year‑old to qualify for medical assistance in dying. We must prove that the person has taken medication, received follow‑up care and undergone therapies, and that, after a few years of unsuccessful treatment, the suffering persists. That's what it takes for a person to have the right to decide for themselves.
I would now like to address an issue raised by my colleague concerning cases involving irreversible suffering. If you have schizophrenia and you have been in therapy for 20 years or so without seeing any results, and you're suffering, it seems that you have the right, as a patient and as an individual, in consultation with the doctor evaluating you and with all the professionals, to decide whether you want to continue to live with your quality of life.
I often hear a form of paternalism from some of my colleagues around the table. They're not able to trust a person's ability to make a decision. Would it be better to say that we can allow these people to make this decision, but take a case‑by‑case approach, since some may have the right to do so? If we fail to listen, we'll be discriminating against a minority of people who could have the right to put an end to their years of suffering.