WATCH LIVE: The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the law prohibiting assisted suicide in Canada on Friday.
OTTAWA – It’s a subject the federal government doesn’t want to touch.
But if the Supreme Court strikes down the law prohibiting assisted suicide in Canada on Friday, legislators will have to talk about it – and write new laws addressing people so desperately, terminally sick they want help ending their lives.
And those involved are already getting ready.
The Canadian Medical Association, which provides guidance to some 80,000 physicians across the country, has for more than a year been looking into key issues it wants to tackle if the law is struck down.
“We’ve already begun a lot of work in this area in anticipation of the possibility that the law might be overturned,” CMA president Chris Simpson said in an interview.
“This will be really historic for Canada, and we really want to make sure we get it right.”
Watch: 16×9’s Life, Death and the Law
Questions such as which patients would be eligible, how terminal diseases would be defined, how many doctors would be required to prescribe medication, a time period for “sober second thought”, and what competency means – are all in the mix for the CMA.
Get breaking National news
“The devils in the details, very much. So we really want to be deeply involved I think in how this is defined,” Simpson said.
Parliament typically has a year to rewrite a law if the high court strikes it down.
Polls suggest a majority of the Canadian public supports assisted suicide, although they’re split when it comes to specifics.
READ MORE: Most Canadians support doctor-assisted suicide, but specifics reveal divisions
The case at hand involves two B.C. women, both now dead, who wished to end their “grievous and irremediable” illnesses with medical help.
Gloria Taylor, who had a neurodegenerative disease, eventually died of an infection. Kay Carter, then 89, travelled to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is allowed.
Taylor had won a constitutional exemption at a lower court for a medically assisted death in 2012, but that decision was overturned in subsequent appeals.
Last January the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to settle the matter – effectively revisiting its 1993 judgment in the case of Sue Rodriguez, which kept Canada’s existing prohibition in place.
While Quebec passed a “right to die” bill last year, the federal Conservative government has consistently said it doesn’t want to “reopen the debate” – even as one of their own MPs, who is quadriplegic, introduced a right-to-die bill last year.
But if the laws are struck down, it won’t have a choice.
‘An enormous decision’
On Thursday Justice Minister Peter MacKay wouldn’t say much on what the government might do if it’s forced to rewrite the law.
“It’s an enormous decision. We’re anxiously awaiting of course the Supreme Court’s wisdom in this matter,” MacKay told reporters.
“I’m not going to preempt that or comment until we’ve actually seen the decision, and when we do get the decision, we’ll obviously take the time to read it in detail.”
Some groups advocating for those with disabilities have warned against a “slippery slope” of legislating assisted suicide – arguing it could put the disadvantaged at risk.
Watch: Feds want absolute prohibition on assisted suicide
Wanda Morris, CEO of Dying With Dignity Canada, which advocates for expanding Canadians’ end-of-life options, said its work is far from done no matter the decision on Friday.
“There’s no guarantee a just decision will translate into appropriate legislation,” Morris said.
“We’ll be over-the-moon thrilled if it happens, but then we’ll celebrate and we’ll get right back to work.”
If the law is struck down, Morris said, her members ask candidates in the 2015 election about their positions on assisted suicide.
“We’ll move beyond yes and no. So not just, ‘Do you support assisted dying,’ but ‘What’s your eligibility criteria,’ ‘What remedy do you have available?’”
Most important for Morris and other right-to-die advocates is that medical professionals be actively involved.
“We aren’t going to support a solution that is only the prescription of medication, we want administration of medication as well,” she said.
“This is fundamentally a health issue. When somebody is at end of life, you want them to be treated by a person who has more tools in their toolkit than just the ability to end their life. So doctors can treat pain, they can offer palliative care, they can check competence, and that’s why we believe fundamentally the medical system has to be involved.”
With files from the Canadian Press
Comments