Evidence of meeting #3 for Physician-Assisted Dying in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Joint Chair (Hon. Robert Oliphant) Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
Senator Seidman, we have just a few minutes.
12:55 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (De la Durantaye), C
If I may, I would ask Monsieur Ménard about the advance directives issue.
The National Assembly's Select Committee on Dying with Dignity report recommended, in recommendation 19, that advance directives be taken into consideration. It even requested that “necessary measures to ensure the advance directive for medical aid in dying appears in a person's medical file and is recorded in a register”. This was included in the original draft of Bill 52. However, after study of the legislation, it was exempted from the actual bill.
Could you explain to us what the issue was in this case?
12:55 p.m.
Lawyer, Barreau du Québec
It is comparable to all advance directives. We at the Expert Jurists Committee had recommended that this be allowed. It was withdrawn in the course of the debate, for several reasons. Regarding wishes expressed previously by a patient, there are several difficulties. Was the patient capable of giving those directives when he or she gave them? How can that be verified? Did he have a proper understanding of the decisions that he was making at that time? Has he changed his mind since? When it becomes possible, will that still be his wish?
Questions of that type were submitted in the course of our work and we preferred to adopt a much more prudent and conservative approach. We decided in a way to apply the “here and now rule”. This means that when the time comes for the person to make that choice, his wishes will prevail. We did not want to allow a person in good health to make that decision at home, in his basement, 10 years before he knows what the situation will be like when he or she is actually in it.
We also wanted to avoid that third parties authorized to make that decision for someone could make a decision based on criteria other than the best interest of the person concerned. Take the example of a third party authorized to make decisions who is also the heir, or for whom the elderly person has become a burden. We really wanted it to be an independent decision taken by the person concerned and only that person. That was the choice we made as we went along. There was a lot of debate on this. Really, in the final analysis, it was a political choice, because there were some solid arguments on both sides. We wanted to place greater weight on protecting the person, especially vulnerable persons. The Quebec act contains a whole host of safeguards intended to protect vulnerable people.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Joint Chair (Hon. Robert Oliphant) Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much to the witnesses.
The meeting will adjourn. We will commence again at 5:30 p.m. in camera.