Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party on this very decisive and emotional issue. It is one that is obviously of great importance to all Canadians and certainly, listening to the comments in the House, of great importance to all members.
I should note from the outset that the Progressive Conservative caucus has decided that each individual member should reflect on his or her own conscience. As well, each and every member should reflect on the views put forward by their constituents. As such, our party will be voting on this motion accordingly.
While in the parliamentary sense our caucus has opted for a free vote approach among members, there is nothing free about the consequences of the motion put forward. Although the motion merely deals with the convening of a special committee to examine the Criminal Code provisions dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, the long term consequences are something that all members of this place, regardless of political affiliation, will consider when reviewing such a motion.
Canadians from coast to coast, particularly those in the medical profession, are in need of direction. Indeed most Canadians sadly face at some time or another the devastating tragedy of death whether by terminal illness, accident, age or infirmity.
I commend the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his hard work and dedication to the issue. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the member's stand, one cannot help but respect the strength and passion the member brings to the House in this debate.
I also welcome the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas back to the House after his very serious accident over the holidays. One thing I have come to learn in the short time I have been in the Chamber is that this place is a more lively and open forum with the participation of the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Indeed it would have been a shame had this debate taken place without his presence. In any event, I wish the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas good health and best wishes for a speedy recovery.
As previously mentioned, recent court cases have highlighted the fact that euthanasia is on the minds of many Canadians. Unfortunately specific case references can be misleading because they are fact specific. As the hon. member opposite noted bad facts do make for bad law. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the motion, in my view the very heart of euthanasia beats with the question of life itself.
When we look to the issue of abortion the question frequently posed is when does life begin. As we look at this issue the question we pose is simply when does life truly end. The questions may be simple; the answers certainly are not.
Canadian society among many societies in the world has not been able to reach a clear consensus. The continued advances made in medical technology pose new questions on issues of life and death. We need only to look at the developing controversy surrounding the issue of human cloning to know this to be true. It is very difficult to predict what the coming years may bring if technology continues to advance at this pace.
Creating life, as ending it, inevitably prompts an atmosphere of controversy. Those two inevitabilities provoke a moral and legal debate of mammoth proportions. As many in the House know and acknowledge, a Senate committee recently examined the question of euthanasia. While consensus was not reached on the core issue itself, two conclusions were reached that we should keep in mind during this debate.
First is an increased need for long term palliative care in Canada going unmet by the current health care system. Second, both medical practitioners and personal care givers need better guidance and protection so that they do not contravene sections of the Criminal Code.
While I read and consider what medical advice can achieve today compared to a hundred years ago I cannot help but be truly amazed that the advances made in technology have literally changed the rules of life and death. For example, medical practitioners are able to treat pneumonia for a person suffering from terminal cancer. Kidney failure or heart attack is no longer fatal at times when met with appropriate medical interventions. Should we now allow those same medical advances to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill through the acceleration of death?
Let us consider the arguments of euthanasia proponents. They point to a dramatically improving ability of providing palliative care to persons suffering from long term afflictions. With respect to the advances of medical and medicine technology, these advocates would say that we as a society must stop asking the question of what can be done medically and start asking instead with the query of what should be done.
Medical ethics make the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I cite the basis upon which the North American Medical Association distinguishes the two. This statement is taken from the medical association:
The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another—is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands—The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of a body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and
or his immediate family.
There are others who clearly reject the clear-cut distinction between active and passive euthanasia. These individuals would claim that whether treatment is withdrawn to cause death or treatment is applied to cause death the result is inevitable and the same.
Philosopher James Rachels wrote the following to support this view:
Fixing the cause of death may be very important from a legal point of view, for it may determine whether criminal charges are brought against a doctor. But I do not think that this motion can be used to show a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.
The application of society's standards on individual questions of life and death will always be difficult ones, especially without clear answers to the questions of life and death. We are never left to forget the question of the rights of the individuals versus the rights of society.
Euthanasia proponents contend that individuals have the right to decide their destinies, including the right to end their lives in the event of terminal illness. Furthermore, they would have the Criminal Code make allowances for terminally ill patients who request euthanasia.
It is indeed difficult to ignore the pleas of those afflicted with debilitating diseases. Certainly persons in the House and Canadians throughout the land do not in any way want to see individuals suffer. That principle however is paramount.
For those who strongly oppose any form of euthanasia and the sanctity of life the questions of viability and of ensuring that consent is voluntary are extremely important. They believe that allowing for active euthanasia will lead to abuses. This is again a grave concern. To die with dignity, certainly the last wish we all have, will protect society and is nevertheless the cornerstone of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I am pleased to speak on this issue. I should note again that the Progressive Conservative caucus will be releasing its members from party lines to vote their conscience.
