On April 14, 2016 Parliament introduced Bill C-14 to amend the Criminal Code and related statutes in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s Carter ruling on medical assistance in dying.
The bill removes criminal liability for assisting a person to end her or his life if carried out in compliance with the new s. 241.1.
The bill first defines “medical assistance in dying” as the administering by a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner of a substance to a person, at their request, that causes their death, or the prescription or provision of such substance to be self-administered.
In order to be eligible to receive medical assistance in dying, a person must:
- be 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;
- have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
- have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and
- give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying.
Clearly the most debated portion of the bill will be defining what constitutes a “grievous and irremediable medical condition”. The government has defined it in the bill as requiring all of the following:
- a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability;
- an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;
- enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the person and cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable; and
- natural death being reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that a person has remaining.
The requirement of “an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability” and “natural death being reasonably foreseeable” have been viewed as overly restrictive by some, but are largely approved of by the medical community.
Safeguards are included in the bill, requiring that before a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner provides a person with medical assistance in dying, they must:
- be of the opinion that the person meets all of the eligibility criteria above and obtain a written opinion to that effect from another, independent medical practitioner or nurse practitioner;
- ensure that the person’s request for medical assistance in dying was made in writing, signed and witnessed after the person was informed that their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable;
- ensure that the person has been informed that they may, at any time and in any manner, withdraw their request;
- ensure that there are at least 15 clear days between the day on which the request is signed and the day on which the medical assistance in dying is administered, unless a shorter period is deemed appropriate in the circumstances;
- immediately before providing the medical assistance in dying, give the person an opportunity to withdraw their request and ensure that the person gives express consent to receive medical assistance in dying.
The bill extends protection to pharmacists who prescribe substances and to others who assist the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner is administering assistance in dying. A criminal offence is established for failing to follow the safeguards, with potential jail sentences of not more than 5 years.
No manner of providing medical assistance in dying is set out. The bill only requires that assistance be provided with reasonable knowledge, care and skill and in accordance with any applicable provincial laws, rules and standards. Indeed, as health care is within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction, it will be up to the provinces to implement and oversee the practice of delivering medical assistance in dying.
Much debated before the bill was introduced were issues such as the eligibility of minors, mental illness and advance consent. Minors are clearly not eligible and will be the subject of further study. As for mental illness, it is not specifically deemed ineligible and indeed the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition illness references psychological suffering. However, the issue of mental illness will undoubtedly be problematic as mental illness may affect the ability of a person to give informed consent. Connected to this issue is the matter of advance consent. What happens if a person has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability but is not yet in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability? If they are suffering from a progressive cognitive disease, by the time their disease and suffering has advanced, they may no longer be capable of giving informed consent to treatment. This bill would not allow that person to give consent to medical assistance in dying before their cognitive abilities decline.
The government has taken a cautious approach with this bill. Given what is really a short period of time to deal with such a large social issue, this was not unexpected. Once this bills passes, whether intact or with amendments, the debate will continue and there will undoubtedly be many calls for amendment, both for more restrictive and for more liberal measures.