More on Medical Assistance in Dying

Christmas, even one limited by a pandemic, tends to distract from all other concerns short of a catastrophic natural disaster. I suppose a pandemic is a natural disaster, but you know what I mean. 

So, did you notice when the Canadian parliament passed changes to the legislation regarding Medical Assistance in Dying on December 10th? As CBC news reported:

MPs voted 212 to 107 in favour of the legislation. Several Conservative MPs supported it, while a handful of Liberal MPs voted against it or abstained.

The government introduced C-7 in February in response to a September 2019 Superior Court of Quebec ruling which found that the law's precondition for obtaining a physician-assisted death — that the individual seeking it must face a "reasonably foreseeable" natural death — was unconstitutional.

I have written a number of times about both my reservations concerning MAID and my cautious support in some circumstances. I've watched as people for whom I've provided pastoral care suffer unnecessarily, with medical technology keeping them from death but not providing hope of meaningful life. I've also been aware of physicians administering levels of pain medication for terminal patients which likely hastened their deaths. 

Just the same, I'm grateful that advocates for those with disabilities, members of opposition parties in the legislature (as well as a few in the Liberal party) and some voices in the media expressed concern and objection before the new legislation was passed. 

The argument that this is the "slippery slope" of acceptance for greater latitude for MAID may be overstated by some, yet we need to pay attention. There is an irony in the fact that many of us are outraged by the lack of protection of the vulnerable and elderly during this pandemic we aren't engaged in the discussion about assisted dying. 

As I've said before, as Christians we cherish the sanctity of God-given life, and while we may feel, as I do, that MAID can be a compassionate choice in some circumstances, we must also diligently  protect the vulnerable in our society. I still don't understand why the insistence of the Quebec Superior Court that choice be broadened should dictate what happens for the rest of the country. Why do judges have this power, and why do we frame this as primarily a matter of human rights when there are profound moral and ethical issues we must address? 

While the deadline was December 18th for approval of new legislation, I think there was another extension for review by the Senate, which refused to be hurried in its response. I hope there is thoughtful reflection on what has been proposed. 

It is worth going to the United Church of Canada website to find the original statement about MAID and to read the the revised statement includes the following updates:

1. that the criterion of “foreseeable death” for access to Medical Assistance in Dying be maintained
2. that ending suffering due to mental illness not be a category for MAID, and that the church advocate for increased mental health resources
3. that advance directives in relation to MAID not be permitted
4. for mature minors, capacity to make a decision for MAID be judged on a case-by-case basis, by medical professionals in consultation with family and community