Debates of May 3rd, 2016

Criminal Code

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I apologize that I did not get your question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat the question briefly, and through the Speaker if possible.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and the candour and sincerity with which he has expressed his views. I am simply asking him, upon reading, analyzing, studying, and reflecting on the decision of the Supreme Court, would the member share his views as to what he would have done to comply with that decision and within what time frame?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I did not catch the question the first time.

Clearly the objective in this country should be to encourage life, not to encourage taking life. My point would have been to make a direct commitment to make sure that we have true palliative care in this country.

Second, because of the Supreme Court decision, it needs to be clear that there will never be what is said in this document about returning to discussions on minors and those with mental illness. We need to be as tight and protective of the vulnerable, seniors, and our youth as we can, and to make explicitly sure that those who have a moral and ethical bar are not made in any way to perform a duty in which their oath as a medical practitioner was never allowed to take them until this judgment came down.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. While I do not agree with what he said, I found his presentation to be interesting. We can learn from our differences.

Two things stood out to me in his presentation. First, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court is changing the picture in a way, while that stroke of the pen is the consequence of a changing society, in my opinion. The second thing is this type of dichotomy that he is presenting between palliative care and assisted suicide.

I wonder if we are burying our heads in the sand a bit when we talk about palliative care. I am thinking about my father, who was deeply religious. The day he consciously agreed that my mother would receive morphine to alleviate her suffering, he knew full well that he was shortening her life. That too is medical assistance in dying. In my opinion, it is the very spirit of this bill: to ensure that any suffering that can be alleviated is, even if that has an impact on the length of a person's life.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of times that this debate, or close to this debate, has been on this floor. As recently as 2010, this issue around assisted suicide or assisted dying was turned down, not unanimously, but almost unanimously, in this House.

When I said “by the stroke of a pen”, I actually meant that. It was never a desire of the people in the past Parliament to endeavour to move our medical people to committing suicide acts with patients. It was the stroke of a pen that would change Canada forever, because once someone is euthanized, it is irreversible.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all parliamentarians for having the courage to participate in this sensitive debate.

According to the Supreme Court decision, it is up to the House to debate Bill C-14, which has to do with medical assistance in dying. The Supreme Court has given us the daunting task and the responsibility of establishing a framework for this. We are also having to do some soul searching about the finite nature of our lives and the lives of the people we represent.

It will be difficult and heartbreaking for me to make this decision for others, and it would also be difficult to make this decision for myself or one of my loved ones. I think that, ultimately, the law as a whole will not be perfect. It will only be acceptable, in light of all the changes it will make to the way we see life, for generations to come.

I do not want to dwell on the particularities of this bill, but I simply want to share the thoughts, feelings, and, especially, concerns that I have shared with many of my constituents in Lévis—Lotbinière.

All of us, as Canadian MPs, have the opportunity to have a close relationship with our constituents thanks to the many means of communication available. It is always a great privilege and a sign of undeniable trust to listen to heartfelt confidences.

I observed great resiliency but, at the same time, great concern about the bill. I use the term “resiliency” because, in Quebec, the debate was held over a long period of time and my constituents accepted the voice of the majority of the Quebec National Assembly, even though the decision was not unanimous.

The concern was caused by the version of the bill, which provides a broader interpretation than what Quebeckers had said they wanted. I hope that the final version of the bill will allay these concerns, if not completely eliminate them.

What was surprising was that the discussions I had with my constituents all led to another very important issue, palliative care. Unfortunately, not all Canadians have access to palliative care and that is the problem. Why not focus on life and on living with dignity, as was suggested by Sauveur Champagne, one of my constituents, and on the quality of our lives in our last days? Appropriate care could have prevented this debate.

There is medical comfort care and ethically provided adequate support that, unfortunately, not everyone can access for different reasons. Some people who are optimistic by nature shared with me that the issue of medical assistance in dying made them realize the importance of life and of fully enjoying it with their loved ones and friends. It is human nature to enjoy the best that life has to offer.

I believe that Canadians are aware that life is very fragile and that we all have the opportunity to share love and friendship, to strengthen bonds and to help one another while we can.

We all have to be aware of the need to strike a balance between our personal family time and the time we can generously give to others.

Other people have also talked to me about the collateral damage associated with learning that someone chose to end their life this way. This will leave scars on our society if it is not properly regulated and accepted, given that part of our population does not support this bill, since it goes against their fundamental, cultural, and religious beliefs.

With all due respect, we must consider the views of that segment of the population, which is just as important, because they are also entitled to have a say in this Parliament. Others, on a more personal level, are going through the process of losing of a child or parent right now, and they could, to various degrees, change their views on the act of choosing to end one's life.

That being said, ultimately, the decision to end one's life is up to the individual, based on his or her convictions, beliefs, and physical condition. I hope it remains a personal choice that is respected by all family, friends, and loved ones, a choice that is not influenced by any external pressures.

The question we need to ask is this: how can we be sure that this will not get out of control? It will be difficult to include safeguards in the law that will cover all of the very different individual cases. That is why many of us already feel as though this law will not be perfect; it will merely be acceptable. As medical advances allow people to live longer, what will be the appropriate degree of dignity, for those who have to decide?

For those who want to enjoy more precious moments, this may represent a tremendous opportunity to prolong their lives. For the others, the door will now be open to allow them to make a new choice, which also seems to bring hope to those who no longer want to count the days.

Personally, I have would have liked to wait and do what Quebec did, to take five years to assess the impact of this type of end-of-life option. Taking that amount of time to conduct a comprehensive study would help us, as legislators, make a more informed decision. I think that would be the wise thing to do in order to make the right choices for the safety of Canadians and future generations. However, that is not going to happen, since we are obligated to make such a quick decision. In my opinion, there will always be some doubt since the law will be merely acceptable. Time will tell whether this change in direction was a good one. May God help us.

Every parliamentarian here in the House and in the Senate will make a significant contribution to this debate. We must all bring a rational and moral tenor to this debate as we align it with Canadian values and thinking in a way that respects all of our Canadian communities.

After this debate, we will all be aware that, for better or worse, the Canada we knew will no longer be the same. We will live with this new law. We have to ensure that it will be interpreted in accordance with our guidelines.

In closing, the best way for people to figure out where they stand on this issue is for all Canadians to experience the end of life alongside someone who is dying. That is the only way to understand the full import and humanity of imminent death.

That would also provide an opportunity to appreciate and cherish the dying person and every second of the gift of life, to learn from that person's wisdom and the rich experiences that deeply moved and changed him or her throughout life, because it is human nature to seek constant improvement and to leave a legacy to our children, our loved ones, our closest friends. Personally, that experience—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his heartfelt comments. The common thread was individual autonomy. I deeply appreciate his comments.

More than 25 years ago, I had the honour of working with a justice of the Supreme Court.

His predecessor suggested that the decision to change Canada's position based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the stroke of a pen was not legitimate.

Does the member share his hon. colleague's opinion?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I will talk about my experience and my speech. I will take this opportunity to finish the last 20 seconds of my speech.

This experience completely changed my perception, and I can say that letting go of one of my loved ones took love and understanding. Faced with the inevitable, we find the strength we need to accept it, to make our peace with it, and to find the right words to say goodbye in our own way with the respect and love that every one of us deserves. May God be with us.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He mentioned that he would have preferred to wait five years, in order to watch and see what happens in Quebec. It is true that in Quebec, we have paved the way on this issue. I am very proud of that, as I myself am part of the Jonquière riding in Quebec City.

Although it is late, perhaps there are people watching us this evening who are suffering and family members who are helping them. Those people cannot wait five years. Those people are suffering.

What are my colleague's thoughts on leaving those people to suffer unbearably, without making any rules with a bill like the one before us here this evening?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In our country, Canada, if the entire population had access to quality palliative care, we might not need to have this kind of debate here this evening. Quebec has already begun the process. Our country could have taken the time to assess Quebec's experience after five years. We, as legislators, could have drawn more informed conclusions after looking at the Quebec experience within Canada. Personally, I would have liked the opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, this debate is being rushed.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about palliative care. I will have a chance to address the House in a few moments, and I will really be emphasizing that option.

How does my colleague think that government investments or support might be provided to improve palliative care facilities and put more of these facilities in place all over Canada?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I lost my father, who did not have the opportunity to have palliative care. Watching a loved one leave his family in small room at the end of a hallway with a badly painted chair that had probably been there for 45 years without any comfort for the family was sad beyond words.

It would be fair and equitable for all Canadians and their families to have the right to proper support and a certain degree of dignity in the final days and hours of their lives.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just before I begin my speech, I would like to say to the people of Fort McMurray tonight that my heart and thoughts go to them. They are fleeing their community tonight. Eighty thousand people have to evacuate. They are fighting for their lives tonight. We are thinking of them.

I rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). The issue of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been debated in Canada for a number of years. However, a resolution for this sensitive issue became critical since the decision of Carter v. Canada, which unanimously struck down the Criminal Code ban on assisted dying, and gave Parliament a year to come up with new legislation.

This legislation must apply to competent adults with grievous and irreversible medical conditions that cause enduring suffering and who clearly consent to ending their lives. Bill C-14 seeks to fulfill section 7 of the charter, namely the right to life, liberty, and security. The bill proposes a wide and detailed range of legislated objectives, legal notions, patient eligibility criteria, exemptions from the criminal liability, and safeguards. However, as experience shows, the question of life and death is very vague. An absolute prohibition of assisted dying forces Canadians who have grievous and irreversible medical conditions to suffer and look for medical assistance abroad to end their lives.

There have been two cases in Canada: Rodriguez, and Carter v. Canada. As well, there have been approximately six private member's bills between 1991 and 2010 that sought to decriminalize assisted suicide. None of these were successful. In Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court stated:

While opponents to legalization emphasized the inadequacy of safeguards and the potential to devalue human life, a vocal minority spoke in favour of reform, highlighting the importance of dignity and autonomy and the limits of palliative care in addressing suffering. The Senate considered the matter as well, issuing a report on assisted suicide and euthanasia in 1995. The majority expressed concerns about the risk of abuse under a permissive regime and the need for respect for life. A minority supported an exemption to the prohibition in some circumstances.

It is evident by the quote that physician-assisted dying is highly divisive; people are separated across this country. Bill C-14 is a very difficult bill for me personally to wrap my mind around. I feel, like many Canadians, that we are put here on earth for a reason. The reason could be debated for days, but like all living things we strive to live by adapting to our environment. From bugs to humans, we adapt to survive, to live. All creatures eventually die—some as prey to others, some to the environment, some to the weather, some to sickness, and some to age. Most will fight for life if threatened. As humans, it is our nature to fight to live.

Our nation has experienced two world wars where our veterans fought to give us freedom and better lives. How many of them would have laid down their lives if they had known that later people would be able to take their own lives as outlined in this Bill C-14. A number of World War II veterans have told me that this is wrong. Is it wrong? This is where I personally have difficulty in finding an answer to this extremely moral question. I am honestly confused and my emotions are mixed. Allow me to explain.

Both of my parents died of cancer, as did both of my in-laws. I watched my father's weight decline from 190 pounds to 75 pounds when he passed. He suffered immensely, as did my mother and my in-laws, but they fought for life until the bitter end. It hurt me to watch them go that way, but they made me realize the need to fight for life. That is what I first thought: never give up the fight until the end.

Fifteen years ago, I lost my life partner of 30 years to cancer. I hate the word “cancer“. My wife, like myself, believed in fighting to the bitter end. I watched my wife battle cancer for two years. If any treatment, from radiation to chemotherapy, could go wrong, it did with her, compounding the pain and agony she suffered. I watched and assisted her as her body weakened and she lost control over its functions.

I was with her when she took her last breath. I am a strong person emotionally, but by the end, I was emotionally broken as I watched her suffer so much. I wanted to end her suffering. She was hanging on to life day after day after day, and I asked, why the suffering?

We had agreed to fight as a couple only filling out a do-not-resuscitate order. At the end, I would have done anything to put her out of her suffering and pain. Morphine finally did the same. Now I ask myself if Bill C-14 is wrong or right. During my wife's last week of living, I would have welcomed the bill to stop her pain and suffering. That was 15 years ago. I still hurt when I think of my wife suffering, yet I am so proud of her fight to live. That fight gave us an extra year together, which I am so grateful for. Do I vote yes for Bill C-14, or do I vote no? I am so personally torn on this issue.

I respect the rights of individuals and the rights that Bill C-14 may give them, but my heart says we have to fight for life. I am glad that this is a free vote. I have weighed the pros and cons and it is a difficult decision, but I cannot support this bill. There are too many grey areas. Betty Unger, an Alberta senator, said, “There is something terribly wrong when a government does more to guarantee that the living can die, than to ensure that the dying can live”.

That being said, I believe the government must emphasize palliative care over physician-assisted dying. I praise those who have chosen to work in the environment and I understand that we have much to do to make palliative care better. Because of lack of staff, families often provide the primary care.

Physician-assisted dying is a difficult issue for me and it is for many sitting in the House. If Bill C-14 is passed, I ask that it include stringent safeguards to protect vulnerable populations and protect the conscience rights of workers in institutions in the health care sector. Members on all sides of the House have a variety of positions on physician-assisted dying. I appreciate our party's recognition that this is a moral issue and allowing members a free vote on this very difficult matter of conscience.

I thank all the presenters on Bill C-14 for helping me decide to say no.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a passionate and very personal and deeply touching speech.

The member referenced respect for individual rights and mentioned the importance of fighting for life until the very end. Why can we not respect the individual rights of those who want to fight to the very end, but also respect the individual rights of those who wish to end their lives in a dignified fashion?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question comes right back to where one takes the stand. I take the stand that we fight for life. As I said earlier, I respect individuals' decisions, but I believe that we were put on this earth as creatures to fight for life and to live. That is my stand.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very heartfelt speech.

He pointed out to me and reinforced something that I learned as well as I watched my parents and my brother die, that in that process of dying, some shorter than others, those deaths, that process taught me so much about what it is to be human, not only in watching them fight for life, as my colleague said, but in helping me have a better understanding of suffering.

My colleague mentioned palliative care. Earlier today we talked about the fact that the previous government did nothing on the aspect of moving ahead to deal with the Supreme Court decision, but I want to point out again to all parliamentarians and Canadians that indeed, the external panel did an excellent job of their report. Unfortunately, the Liberal government chose not to allow any recommendations from the panel.

One of the factors that is highlighted in the report is the extreme lack of palliative care options in Canada. The report pointed out that only 51 palliative care specialists currently exist in Canada out of a total of 77,000 physicians.

I want to ask my colleague for his position on the need for better palliative care options, not only in terms of more physicians and palliative care workers being trained, but also in terms of actually constructing some hospices across Canada that would provide a dignified place for people to be cared for in a loving way.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very sad when we look at that report. Besides the 77,000 physicians he talked about, I believe there are only about 123 other general practitioners across Canada who specialize in palliative care. That is less than 200 across the country out of 77,000 doctors. That is unacceptable.

That is why we need a national palliative care strategy. We need specialized funding to deal with palliative care, to help train more physicians, more medical professionals to deal with people in a palliative situation.

We need to look at hospices. We need to spend money. We talk about infrastructure. Let us take that money and build facilities that house the dying. Let us look after the dying and let them die with dignity and respect.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his sincerity.

I would like to know whether, after reading the Supreme Court decision, my colleague would have recommended invoking the notwithstanding clause and overriding the Supreme Court's decision.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that did not come through on my earpiece. I did not hear what the hon. member said.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I am simply asking my learned colleague if he would have raised the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian charter in response to the decision of the Supreme Court.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in this particular case I would have. No.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in this House to speak to Bill C-14 and to the issue of medically assisted dying.

This is a complex issue for which there are strong opinions on both sides. Some of my comments may be new to this debate and some will echo those of others before me. However, they are all the voice of my constituents in Calgary Confederation.

As my constituent Brenda Robinson said to me in a letter, “There is no doubt that we are in a defining moment for our nation on this important issue. So many lives hang in the balance of how our leaders craft this legislation.”

As I said, there are many sides to this complex issue. The people watching this debate the last couple of days, those people in the galleries, or those watching CPAC on their computers are able to pick and choose the parts of this legislation that they do and do not like, but I and all of us in the House only have the option of a yea or a nay when it comes to a vote. We know that the legislation will pass. It has to pass because the court has said so.

Members may or may not know that I am a big proponent of palliative care. My constituency assistant Lou Winthers in Calgary was the founder and executive director of Hospice Calgary. My late father-in-law was the executive chef at the Rosedale Hospice in Calgary. He spent much of his long life career as an executive chef in many hotels throughout the country. He spent his final years cooking for the dying in the hospice in Calgary.

For many years, my family has volunteered with Hospice Calgary. Never would I have ever thought that I would be fighting for a bed for my wife one day. I saw then first-hand how critical it is that we have a good palliative care system here in Canada.

Through my experience with Hospice Calgary, I also saw first-hand how horribly underfunded this specialized care is within our current health care system. We need to improve palliative care both for the patients and their families. I cannot thank the staff enough at Agapé Hospice for the support they gave me and my family only a few years ago. I only wish that all Canadians had the access and support they need to get palliative care during one of the toughest times in one's life. We need to do better, and we can do better, but we have a long way to go.

I have received more correspondence on this issue than any other issue since being elected or during my 10 years as an MLA in Alberta. Normally, we see letters either urging an MP to support or oppose legislation. However, the inevitability of this legislation has resulted in a different kind of response. My constituents are writing to suggest how things can be improved and to express concerns with respect to very specific parts. This has made for some very emotional and thoughtful reading.

Ken, a constituent in my riding, wrote to me saying, “Even though I am personally against all euthanasia on personal, moral, and faith grounds, I concede we will probably have to have a law that allows it in extreme circumstances. But many of the current recommendations go far beyond, and in effect could allow this to become an “on-demand service” that leaves many of the most vulnerable unprotected.” Ken's letter is one of many that raise concern for our most vulnerable.

Connie C., another constituent who wrote to me, is passionately against any form of suicide. She said, “My father's death was a gradual decline that spanned a four month period, it was a difficult time for him and for the family. However, we shared some very meaningful time together during those four months and I have a new appreciation for the death process. It was painful and difficult for him, unfortunately struggle is part of the human experience.... Suicide cuts short the human experience and no physician should be asked to end a human life.” That is what Connie had to say.

On the other side of the issue, there are those who wish to have access to these medically assisted options.

Valerie wrote to me and said, “My father and others in my family have had dementia and I saw how they forgot to bathe and brush their teeth and refused to let others take care of them. My father lived his last 6 months in a nursing bed doing nothing but lay in bed. If I get dementia I know I do not want to live like that. If I do not have the option of physician assisted dying then I will opt to find a way to end my life while I am still able to make this decision. I beg you to please allow me a better option should I get dementia.”

Debra Lee wrote to me, and she wrote to the Minister of Justice as well, with a perspective that few have. She worked for over 40 years as a registered nurse. She said, “I saw my share of people die, many of them with good management of their symptoms but some who did suffer a great deal–from physical as well as emotional pain. Some people received intrusive treatments which had no hope of curing them or even easing their suffering. But for too long in my career, I observed a death denying culture–everyone from health providers, family members and individuals themselves having difficulty accepting death.”

As I stated earlier, this issue is complex.

Another constituent, Catherine G., focused on some of the specific parts of the proposed legislation that she felt needs to be improved. She expressed concerns that there is not enough protection for the vulnerable. She said, “I believe that physician assisted death will leave many elderly people open to the worse form of abuse. They may feel pressured to accept it since they feel themselves to be a burden to their loved ones. We must care for the sick and elderly; doctors must never kill.”

Many expressed concern for the most vulnerable in society, but some also wrote about their own vulnerability.

Tracey wrote, “Today my mother is slowly starving to death in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's. Since my grandmother also had it, there is a good chance I will as well. Without assisted suicide I will be forced to commit suicide as soon as I am diagnosed because I won't allow my children to go through what I have, nor do I wish to suffer as my mother has.”

Doug James, another constituent of mine, echoed my sentiments exactly when he said, “I suggest that we are better off having what some will call incomplete legislation, rather than no legislation at all, and trust that future legislation can be passed to address any deficiencies.”

It is for this reason alone that I will be supporting the bill. It is not about a vote of approval for the bill or the circumstances that brought it about. Rather, it is a vote that recognizes that when it comes to something as personal and sensitive as death, it is better to have options available, even if we do not like them, even if we do not believe in them. It is better to have some legal framework than none at all.

My decision will undoubtedly be welcomed by some and loathed by others, but I am confident that my constituents will look at my past, my experiences, and respect that in the absence of an overwhelming and clear direction from my constituents, I am voting for choice.

In closing, I want to also echo a deep concern expressed by David MacPhail, who wrote to me and said, “There should be clear conscience protections for health care workers and facilities in the legislation.... It is not right that people should be forced to participate against their deeply held convictions, either through referral or by doing the procedure. ... It is not necessary to make dedicated physicians and healthcare workers put their careers on the line and open themselves to professional disciplinary action simply because they wish to follow their conscience.”

Finally, I want to reiterate my main concern with the dying process, and that is palliative care. I challenge all in this House to approach this issue with as much energy, urgency, and focus as we have seen on this bill.

I believe that when we all focus on a shared goal, we can achieve remarkable improvements in a very timely fashion. Let us hope that we see the same prioritization when it comes to addressing palliative care.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to this speech.

I hope that, once this debate is over, we will remember how much we have in common in our humanity, something that we all too often forget in the political arena.

The member who just spoke will find that my support for palliative care is unconditional. I have a question for him. I am asking myself that question at the same time because in many of the speeches that we heard today, including my own, members have been talking about their own personal experiences with death.

I think that the bill before us today requires us to look at things from a different perspective and to put ourselves in the shoes of the person who is dying.

Just before my mother died, she was taking such high doses of morphine that she was almost completely unaware of what was happening around her, but those drugs prevented her from suffering. I am trying to put myself in her shoes and think about whether she would have liked to leave when she was conscious, surrounded by her loved ones, knowing that medical assistance in dying was available to her.