Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today in response to the proposal moved by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas that a special committee be appointed to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and that the committee be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill.
As my colleagues in the House would no doubt agree, the subjects referred to in this motion raise very complex legal, moral and social issues that Canadians are increasingly concerned about, but remain clearly divided on.
A Montreal woman in a depressed state drowns her six-year-old son before attempting suicide. A Halifax doctor is charged with the death of a terminally ill cancer patient under her care. These are just two examples to illustrate the complexity of this issue.
The hon. member who moved the motion illustrated the human toll which this issue has taken on Canadian families. No one in this House would not be moved by these tragedies.
When we debate this subject we must examine questions ranging from the quality of medical care available to seriously ill and dying people to the moral questions involving a person's power to control his or her own life, and even the value of life itself.
Technological progress in recent decades has considerably improved our capacity to extend life and, in an aging society, the issues of care and treatment at the end of life take on ever greater importance.
Many individuals, professionals, organizations and associations have clearly expressed their concerns on this over the 16 months of hearings held by the Senate Special Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. In June 1995, the committee tabled its report entitled “On Life and Death”.
The stated goals of the committee were to help the public to develop a better understanding of this very complex subject and to set the stage for a full and open national debate. The committee referred to its report as an initial step in the long process ahead for Canadians attempting to find solutions to the problems that it raises.
The issues raised by this motion, that is, euthanasia and assisted suicide, are profoundly controversial. It is clear that the special Senate committee was aware of this. I am sure we would all concur.
The Senate report raised a number of problems which must be carefully addressed. The committee had little difficulty reaching consensus on issues regarding medical and health care practices, such as developing national guidelines to address pain control and sedation, and the withholding or withdrawal of treatment. However, there were no such agreements among committee members when it came to dealing with the more difficult questions of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.
Even in the case of the less controversial recommendations, I would suggest a great deal has yet to be done before we take any steps to consider amendments to the Criminal Code. Let me illustrate by way of example areas where further work is required.
Having heard and considered testimony from numerous health care professionals appearing individually or on behalf of numerous associations representing doctors, nurses and other professionals, the Senate committee report was unequivocal in its recommendations in chapters 3, 4 and 5 that urged the development and implementation of national guidelines and standards in a number of areas such as palliative care, pain control, sedation practices and the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
These guidelines which seemingly have not yet been drafted, should help those who, every day, must make decisions or help others make decisions concerning palliative care and treatment.
Moveover, few Canadian provinces and territories have passed legislation on advance directives, generally known as living wills. Such legislation is important in order to recognize and support the participation of patients and their family in the decisions relating to medical care and treatment when they reach the end of their lives.
At such times, when critical decisions must be made, it is useful and less stressful for those involved to make these decisions if they know the patient's wishes.
Until this work is completed, I think it would be premature to look at how the Criminal Code should deal with these issues.
Referring to the motion before us, while it is clear that I am of the opinion we should not be considering any amendments to the Criminal Code at this time, and I stress at this time, I would also suggest that attempts to do so are fraught with difficulties even when one purports to deal with subject matter upon which there is apparent agreement.
A year ago Bill S-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, protection of health care providers, was introduced in the Senate and was later the subject of second reading debate in that house. The purpose of that bill as stated by the hon. Senator Sharon Carstairs who introduced it was to implement the unanimous recommendations in chapters 4 and 5 of the Senate report dealing with pain control and the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Senator Carstairs took great care to point out that her bill did not touch the more controversial aspects of the Senate report, that is, euthanasia or assisted suicide. Yet that bill itself was the subject of controversy and was not fully supported by the senator's fellow members of the special committee who had initially supported the recommendations in the first report.
In conclusion I would argue that it is premature, as moved by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, to appoint a special committee when there has been in fact one that has studied the issue to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide or to consider the possibility of bringing in a bill when, as the Senate report demonstrated, Canadians are much too divided on these issues.