Editor:
Re: It’s back in their court, Murphy’s Law, Dec. 19
In your commentary vis-à-vis the Delta Hospice Society and the provincial government, aka, Fraser Heath Authority, you wrote the phrase “is at odds with public sentiment,” and failed to cite your basis for so writing, and by so doing, you left open the door as to what is it about the hospice society board that is at “odds with public sentiment.”
As one who has looked deeply into MAiD since its passage into federal law and who has studied the wording in the statute, I have come to the conclusion that as with much legislation, the statute fails to address adequately precisely what MAiD provides. Moreover, as one who held the hand of my wife upon her final breath, I have more than a passing knowledge of what MAiD executes and what palliative care means and accomplishes. In a word [or phrase] the two are not compatible one with the other.
A question worth noting: How many residents of Delta have a copy of Bill C-14 and have read it throughout and can state, categorically, that they understand fully what MAiD imputes.
Another question: Has either the minister of justice or the minister of health [federal] initiated “one or more independent reviews of issues relating to requests by mature minors or medical assistance in dying, to advance requests and to request where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.” (s. 9.1.[1]) Section 10 (1) is also germane.
As with much legislation, some of the wording is nebulous and open to debate and is, therefore, a prime reason why many statutes appear before the courts in an attempt to arrive at a solid definition as to what the drafters intended with the various bills.
It is entirely possible as more Canadians become aware fully of the implications of MAiD that the statute – Medical Assistance in Dying – will appear before a court in Canada. An example of this is a recent B.C. provincial bill which has been described in the media as being poorly written, and will probably end up before the courts.
Bob Orrick
