- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I never thought I would end up debating medical assistance in dying in the House again, or reliving what we went through when we passed Bill C‑14, a bad law. I never expected that the Liberals would again be in the same position, or show the same lack of courage they did with Bill C‑14, which was prescribed by the Carter-Taylor decision.
Quebec passed its legislation on end-of-life care before the Carter decision. In the Carter decision, the court ruled that Quebec had to revise its legislation to include more than end-of-life issues only. The Parliament of Canada, which had never considered this before, was also told that it had to address not only end-of-life issues, but also degenerative diseases like those afflicting Ms. Carter and Ms. Taylor. Ms. Carter had spinal stenosis and Ms. Taylor had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In its decision, the court ruled that Parliament had to legislate because both women's right to life was being infringed.
Why was their right to life being infringed? The right to life is not a minor right. This should be of interest to the Conservatives, who are pro-life. I am too, in that sense. The right to life was being infringed because these people had to shorten their lives when they would have liked to live until their suffering became intolerable.
As members of Parliament, as representatives of the state and the people, our duty is not to decide what the patient needs when it comes to an issue as personal as their death. The role of the state is to ensure the conditions needed for them to exercise free will, so that they can make a free and informed decision. That is the role of the state. Otherwise, we get into government paternalism.
I invite my Conservative colleague to do some reading in clinical ethics and not to limit himself to what psychiatrists in Ontario are saying. We know that psychiatrists are divided on the issue. In fact, if there is one discipline in which medical paternalism continues to reign, it is psychiatry. We would never have seen the progress that we have seen in clinical ethics if medical paternalism in general still ruled supreme.
What happened for patients to be given back control over their end of life? We find the answer to that question in the bioethics literature. In the past, some doctors who had cancer said they did not want treatment. Now, we have good medical practices, whereas in the past, aggressive treatment was the standard. The doctors said that they wanted to live the two years they had left without undergoing treatment that would leave them bedridden. They claimed that they wanted to spend quality time with their loved ones. It took doctors with cancer demanding that option for patients to be able to discuss these sorts of things with their own doctor. In the 1960s, there were patients who only found out that they were dying of an incurable disease and were in fact at the end of their life when the priest came to their room to administer the last rites. They were not even told that they were terminally ill. That was medical paternalism.
Over time, the right to die was granted. Patients were granted the right to die and the opportunity to refuse aggressive treatment. That is when we began providing the palliative care that is so important to my Conservative friends. Before that, palliative care was called passive euthanasia, and it was not allowed.
Medical paternalism has been gradually set aside. What has this led to?
It has led to the right to refuse life-saving treatment, to stop treatment. These are all rights we have today.
We have before us a bill that perpetuates suffering indefinitely for people with a severe mental disorder who have been unable to relieve their suffering through treatment. That is no mean feat. They have spent 10, 20, 30 years suffering, trying multiple treatments and being stigmatized by the society in which they live.
We are able to establish the decision-making capacity of people living with a severe mental disorder. For those capable of making decisions, the court told us that it would be discriminatory and stigmatizing if, just because they have a severe mental disorder causing suffering that psychiatry is unable to properly change or relieve, they were told what was best for them and that they should continue to suffer forever, while psychiatry need only provide a palliative care option until the end. That is what we are discussing today.
I will calm down. It is just that I heard some nonsense earlier.
Then what happens? There was Bill C‑7, which was rather cautious. It set a two-year deadline for creating an expert panel. Who read the report of the expert panel in the House? Who read it before voting? This is the second vote we are having on this subject. We have to read the report of the expert panel. Indeed, the irremediable aspect is something that is hard to implement. Admittedly, there is an additional difficulty, but the expert report does set out guidelines. That is what this is about.
Then the Liberals show up today with a clause they added that says we are going to work with an expert panel for two years and create a joint committee. The problem is that the joint committees have always been set up at the last minute, too close to the deadline.
When we submitted our report the last time, we were forced to admit that, before moving forward with the issue of mental disorders, we needed to assess the situation in the field. Even though I think the group that was supposed to work on it had developed important guidelines and standards of practice, it was obvious to me that there was still not quite enough time. Everyone told us so, including the Collège des médecins du Québec—I will have more to say later about its criteria and guidelines for proceeding that I find useful.
How is it that, a year ago, the government gave itself a one-year deadline and thought that would be enough time? A lot of work has been done in that year, yet the government is saying we should put it off until 2027.
We heard what the Conservatives just said. We can forget about MAID if they form government; they will put it off indefinitely. That means that people will continue to suffer indefinitely, and that suffering will be intolerable because psychiatry is unable to provide relief other than by rendering them virtually incapacitated. Somehow, people find that morally acceptable. I honestly do not know where the morality lies in that. Some people have very flexible morals. In any case, it has nothing to do with suffering.
When people claim that someone living with depression could have access to medical assistance in dying, it is simply not true. Just because someone applies for MAID does not mean they will be able to access it. The assessors will do their job. Stefanie Green was saying that a person in a suicidal crisis is not eligible for medical assistance in dying. Someone who raises their hand and says that they want MAID simply because we allow mental disorders to be eligible grounds for MAID would not have access to it because they have not received proper care.
However, there would be an opportunity for prevention, because we could provide treatment at that time. It is wrong to say that 90% of people who have suicidal ideation and commit suicide received proper care. No, they did not receive proper care. Very often, when people commit suicide, no one saw it coming at all.
What are we going to do? What are the Conservatives going to to with people who are desperate and suffering and who currently still have hope that we are going to consider their suffering and find a solution so that things are done properly and by the law? What do they think those individuals are going to do in their despair? Is suicide morally acceptable? Suicide attests to the failure of our system and our society. I will never, ever accept suicide. That is why, when we talk about medical assistance in dying, we are not in the same page at all.
A person who is feeling suicidal is not eligible. Someone who has just been taken into care and diagnosed is not eligible. Applications take structural vulnerabilities into account. Just because someone is poor and does not have access to care does not mean that they will be eligible for medical assistance in dying. They would not be eligible, because they would have to have tried every possible treatment. Someone who unjustifiably refuses treatment that could improve their condition will not be eligible. If accessible and effective treatments are available and the person refuses them, they are ineligible. If the assessors cannot agree that the criteria have been met, the person is not eligible either.
The Collège des médecins du Québec told us that it remains at the discussion stage, that it has established its guidelines and it still needs time in order to eventually get there. Personally, I think one year would have been enough, otherwise we might give up. We could end up being hypocritical and leave it to chance. We might as well flip a coin.
The Liberals need to work hard if they want to win the election. If not, they are going to be leaving the fate of those who are suffering in the hands of people who just told us today that this will not happen on their watch, that they support suffering for life everlasting, and that they know what is moral and right for these people.
The Quebec college of physicians said, and I quote, “the decision to grant MAID to someone with a mental disorder should not be viewed solely as an episode of care. Rather, the decision should be made following a fair and comprehensive assessment of the patient's situation.” We are talking about taking the time to establish the chronicity of the condition.
The college of physicians also set out a second condition. It said, and I quote, “the patient must not exhibit suicidal ideation, as with major depressive disorders”. It might be a good idea for the members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to hear that, although they are on the same committee as I am and that was said in committee.
That is a far cry from the grandstanding Leader of the Opposition who stands up in the House and asks the Prime Minister, in prime time, whether medical assistance in dying is the only thing he has to offer those who are depressed and having a hard time making ends meet. That is a bit much.
The third criterion laid out by the college of physicians states that the patient must “experience intense and prolonged psychological suffering, as confirmed by severe symptoms and overall functional impairment, over a long period of time, leaving them with no hope that the weight of their situation will ease. This prevents them from being fulfilled and causes them to see their existence as devoid of meaning.”
The experts tell us that they cannot apply irremediability and suffering metrics to mental health, and that prevents them from creating a category as a grounds for MAID. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis. All questions of clinical ethics, in terms of clinical assessment, are examined on a case-by-case basis. Some seem to think that going on a case-by-case basis is hell and that it is not a rigorous process. It is very rigorous.
The fourth condition states, “the patient must have been receiving care and appropriate follow-up over an extensive period of time.” Access to care must have been available. Otherwise, no access to medical assistance in dying will be provided for mental disorders. It seems to me that we heard the same thing in committee. We heard the same criteria.
At some point, we have to have the courage of our convictions. I believe that we have to offer relief to people experiencing intolerable suffering, who have reached their limit. I also believe that we must not make decisions about their life or quality of life for them. They alone can decide what is tolerable or intolerable.
When people talk to me about a slippery slope, they seem to be working on the assumption that all health care workers are evil. However, people who work in health care need to be kind. As far as I know, gaining admission to medical school is not easy. I imagine that the selection criteria are quite strict and challenging. The same goes for nursing.
The fifth condition states, “requests [from social workers] must undergo a multidisciplinary assessment, including by the physician or specialized nurse practitioner in the field of mental health who has treated the individual”. This is in the case of a follow-up assessment, not in the midst an episode. A person cannot get medical assistance in dying simply by saying that their life no longer has any meaning. Making a request does not mean one is eligible.
The Collège des médecins du Québec concluded by saying, “Under these conditions, it would be possible, in the CMQ's view, to provide individuals suffering from a grievous and irreversible mental disorder with access to MAID. It is important to prevent situations where individuals opt for MAID out of desperation, because they do not have access to proper care or do not consider the care available to be acceptable, such as an extended stay in a facility without the prospect of gaining more autonomy.”
That is the exact opposite of the nonsense we heard earlier. We were told that this was like a house of horrors, that we were dealing with experts and doctors who simply wanted to harm people's physical integrity. We have to be careful.
To access MAID, the individual must first make a request, which is then followed by informed consent. When it comes to mental disorders, doctors currently perform a daily assessment of a person's decision-making capacity if they have a mental disorder and a comorbidity, an additional illness that is hastening their death. Everyone agrees that these people are capable of choosing and consenting to medical assistance in dying. MAID practitioners have long been determining the decision-making capacity of people with a mental disorder. Just because someone has a mental disorder does not mean that their right to self-determination and to make decisions should be violated. That is discrimination and stigmatization.
When people tell me they want to protect the vulnerable, I wonder who could be more vulnerable than someone who has suffered for decades with a mental disorder and has tried every treatment. Who could be more vulnerable than someone grappling with a paternalistic psychiatrist—I am choosing my words carefully—who thinks he knows better than his patient what treatment they need, then chains them to a palliative care pathway and throws away the key because he cannot bring himself to admit that he is unable to provide relief to his patient?
At committee, I put the question to some psychiatrists who told us we were on the wrong track. They admitted that, in 25 or 30 years of practice, they had seen some patients fall through the cracks. Indeed, it is for this small group of people who fall through the cracks in psychiatry that this expansion is necessary. We need to show a little humanity here in the House.
2677 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Abbotsford say right out of the gate that his bill seeks to reaffirm the dignity and worth of each and every human life. Who could be against that?
The dignity of every human life, as I was trying to say to him earlier, depends on autonomy and respect for a person's self-determination. We may have good intentions, but if we claim to know what is good for a so-called vulnerable person because we think we know better than they do about what is good for them, because we mistake sympathy for compassion, if we decide through some sort of state or medical paternalism what is supposedly good for them, without considering the person's suffering at all, if we take away a person's self-determination, then we undermine their dignity. That is what I wanted to say, but my colleague did not understand.
That is the very foundation of our position. It is called ethical and political philosophy, not theology or any sort of religious ideology.
The preamble to the bill sets out its intentions: “Whereas Parliament considers it a priority to ensure that adequate supports are in place for the mental health of Canadians”. Who could be against that?
I see no problem with that, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill. This can be done without saying that the mental disorder considered as a serious and irremediable medical condition is excluded. I will come back to that.
The second paragraph of the preamble states, “Whereas Parliament considers that vulnerable Canadians should receive suicide prevention counselling rather than access medical assistance in dying”. This really shows a lack of rigour.
All the experts spoke about this and we can even read it in the literature. It is a little twisted to associate suicide with medical assistance in dying. I heard the leader of the opposition make that link a few times during oral question period, but conceptually that is false. Medical assistance in dying is initiated when an individual expresses that that is what they want. It is not imposed. Above all, it is for situations where the person's condition is irreversible. As far as I know, no witness at committee told us that a suicidal state is not reversible. Furthermore, witnesses also told us that we should not conflate the two. This is not getting off to a good start.
When a request for medical assistance in dying cites a mental disorder as the reason, the first step is to establish whether the person suffering has been struggling with the mental disorder for 10, 20 or 30 years of their life. In the experts' report, which I hope my colleague has read, it says that a person exhibiting suicidal ideation would not be eligible. It is one thing to want or to request medical assistance in dying, and another to meet the eligibility criteria. This is essential.
A person who is depressed or in crisis will not necessarily receive medical assistance in dying. Moreover, the experts say that an assessor would never consider a request for medical assistance in dying from a person in a state of crisis. The patient would have to first exhaust all available treatments for alleviating their suffering, without refusing a single treatment capable of restoring their health.
As Dr. Black said, “One study estimated suicidal thinking as an 8% lifetime risk for adults in the Netherlands, yet 65 or 0.0004% of adults in the Netherlands have died of MAID in any given year due to psychiatric reasons.”
Now we have members talking about a potential slippery slope, citing Bill C-14 and ignoring the obligation given to us by the courts to proceed with passing Bill C-7. Bill C‑14 was a bad bill that confused the public. Is it respectful of human dignity to force people to go on a hunger strike to reach the standard of likely and reasonably foreseeable natural death? I think there is something a bit inhumane about that.
In order to reach a criterion that was unworkable for some, people had to actually go on a hunger strike. Others, like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, had to assert their rights in court. Members say they want to protect the vulnerable. They should start by not treating these people like children and not exploiting them for any purpose. They should instead think about their well-being.
Who is more vulnerable than someone who is suffering intolerably and is close to their tolerance threshold? Who are we to decide for them what their tolerance threshold should be? That is essentially what this is all about.
People want to live as long as possible. The court determined that these individuals' right to life was being infringed upon. I am sure the Conservatives have a lot to say about the right to life. The court found that by denying these individuals the right to medical assistance in dying, their ability to live as long as possible is being taken away. This prevents them from living until they reach their tolerance threshold. That is when we could provide care to them and proceed.
Without this assurance, what do many of these individuals do? They commit suicide prematurely, and this infringes on their right to life. This is indisputable, and it could not be considered reasonable in a free and democratic society, even if it went to the Supreme Court.
Some people always want to go to court. However, right now, people are suffering. While we are procrastinating, people are suffering. We have to put things into perspective.
The committee that considered the issue of mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition made a recommendation. That is why I think that Bill C-314 is premature, at the very least, if not irrelevant at this time.
I will read the committee's recommendation. It states, and I quote: “That, five months prior to the coming into force of eligibility for MAID where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, a Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-established by the House of Commons and the Senate in order to verify the degree of preparedness attained for a safe and adequate application of MAID (in MD-SUMC situations). Following this assessment, the Special Joint Committee will make its final recommendation to the House of Commons and the Senate.”
At the very least, I would have expected a debate to take place following the work of that committee. That is the least that could have been done. I invite my colleague from Abbotsford to read the report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and especially the expert panel's report. The recommendations set out in the expert panel's report include criteria and guidelines that do not exist for other forms of MAID practice. He should feel reassured after reading those recommendations, and I am sure he will never talk about a slippery slope again.
1195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
