Skip to main content

Jesse Pewarchuk is a clinical assistant professor of medicine, University of British Columbia

----------------------

Bill C-14, the proposed legislation on medically assisted dying, signals a new era for Canadian patients. The law would legalize this option for certain competent adults suffering from irremediable illness, but although it affirms fundamental Charter rights for some people, it is a flawed document that falls short of its promise for others.

Story continues below advertisement

It fails both patients and doctors because it denies people the opportunity to establish advance directives requesting medically assisted death. Advance directives, or living wills, are critical legal documents that every competent adult Canadian should have, irrespective of age. This document communicates a person's wishes in the event of lost capacity to make health-care decisions.

Patients often specify discontinuing life-prolonging therapy – "no cardiopulmonary resuscitation," "no feeding tubes," "no artificial life support" – if there is little or no quality of life expected. These issues are best addressed by patients when they are of sound mind, rather than by practitioners or family members who may be guessing at what the patient would want (and can be biased).

Bill C-14's biggest flaw is that it forces the hand of those who have a progressive disease that relentlessly and predictably results in lost mental capacity to consent. Alzheimer's patients can expect, with virtual certainty, to lose the capacity to make medical decisions over time.

Under Bill C-14, they would be faced with a difficult dilemma: They would have to request, and receive, a medically assisted death while still competent to make such a decision. This would mean having to end their life prematurely, to avoid the crippling final stages of the diseases. If they were to wait and request a medically assisted death later, they would likely be deemed to be incompetent. The challenge of dementia is that competency is typically lost before quality of life reaches a nadir where many would want to hasten death.

Worse, the wording of the proposed law introduces significant doubt as to whether an Alzheimer's patient who has yet to lose capacity (yet is certain to) would even be eligible, since death can take years, even from the point of entering long-term nursing care. "Foreseeable death" and "advanced state of decline in capability" are loaded, ambiguous clauses that seem to eliminate the Charter rights of dementia patients to be eligible, and to put any physician carrying out their wishes in considerable legal peril.

Canadians already routinely decline life-prolonging options, such as feeding tubes and artificial life support, and we allow those decisions to be made while fully competent, and to respect them fully even when the patient becomes incompetent.

Bill C-14 recognizes the right of competent adults to end their lives with medical assistance. But by excluding advance directives, and by including clauses about "foreseeable death" and "advanced state of decline in capability," it would create an environment where those with progressive terminal disease must choose to end their lives prematurely, or risk enduring the full natural course of the illness.

Story continues below advertisement

Amending the bill to eliminate dangerous wording and to carefully include advance directives will not only prevent disease-based discrimination, it will also enhance patient options and allow the most desirable outcome for those choosing medical assistance in dying: maximum quality of life, and a death on one's own terms, rather than those of the disease.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter