The Hill: In politics, sometimes those who wait reap rewards

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could be headed for a mess of problems because of a Supreme Court decision last year on assisted dying for the medically incurable. Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) came down in February 2015. That’s even before Trudeau came to power.

In October last year, his people began working on legislation to deal with the unanimous judgment of the nine-member Supreme Court on “assisted dying.”

Trudeau must follow the court word for word. Otherwise, he’s leaving the way open for someone who opposes assisted-dying to challenge him in court. Maybe all the way to the Supreme Court once again.

As it is now, he has to get his legislation through parliament by the June 2016 deadline the court gave him. That’s when everybody in Parliament heads off for summer holidays.

Trudeau has no intention of having his new assisted-dying law not proceed. But one wrong move and he could find himself back in court.

Even though a solid majority of Canadians support assisted dying for the incurable and terminally ill, provided, of course, there is consent from a medical doctor, that support is by no means unanimous.

There are all sorts of MPs from the other political parties, as well as the Liberals, who oppose an assisted-dying law, no matter what the court said or what the majority of Canadians want, just as there are MPs who say that we have incurable cancers that no amount of praying or medicine will be able to stall death.

There are doctors’ groups who don’t want to end up having to make life-or-death decisions on patients, for fear of being sued over “death” decisions that their patients want, and still others who are working on their own miracle cures and need just a little more time to turn a terrible disease into a “curable” illness.

Highly respected Ontario Liberal MP John McKay says assisted dying is not the Charter of Rights issue that the Trudeau cabinet makes it out to be. He has problems with the medical consent issue.

McKay asks: “What happens if the patient’s family is against assisted dying?

“It’s inevitable,” he says. “There will be cases where a doctor gets sued because he whacked Aunt Minnie and nobody in the family wanted Aunt Minnie to be whacked.”

Some families want to keep loved ones alive just a little longer — at least until they can make sure their name is on the will.

For some, religious issues are primordial. An association of Catholic bishops from Alberta spoke out publicly earlier this month against assisted dying. Their belief is that only God should decide when it’s time for anyone to go, not some doctor or a patient who wants to stay around as long as possible.

Dying with Dignity Canada supporters say patients with degenerative diseases such as dementia should be given the right to give “advanced” consent to their doctors rather than have to stick it out until the bitter end, trapped in their bodies.

On the other side of the issue, Dr. Paul Saba, a Quebec family doctor who is president of the Coalition of Physicians for Social Justice, doesn’t think well of assisted dying.

He’s not impressed that most Quebeckers want assisted dying. He says doctors should have a right to say “no” when a patient asks for a referral to a doctor willing to take part in assisted dying.

Dr. Saba says he will refuse to be part of any assisted-dying procedure and refuse to give a referral to a doctor who would.

Trudeau saw the problems coming and has prepared his cabinet. They are all on track with him. Trudeau didn’t make things any easier by declaring to his caucus that they will all be obliged to vote as he says or out they go.

The Supreme Court said in its ruling that only “competent” adults with “grievous and irremediable”
medical conditions that cause “endless suffering” for the patient can make a legal decision to end their lives.

Just reflect on those demands for an instant. What constitutes “competent” adult when the patient is on his last gasps in a hospital bed? Trudeau could have saved himself a lot of trouble by doing what Harper did — just stalling — by waiting an extra year before bringing in a law. Legally, he could have ignored the Supreme Court decision. The court did not change the Criminal Code. It only “suspended” the law against assisted death for a year, to give the politicians time to decide what to do about it.

That’s why Stephen Harper, who was prime minister back then, never moved on the issue. He didn’t have to. He had a choice. He chose to wait. In politics, sometimes those who only stand and wait come out on top. Why risk creating a crisis of your own doing? Who knows what Harper would be doing right now about assisted dying if he were still in power?

Trudeau is a different kind of politician. No waiting around. Move as soon as you can. Not later. We’ll see how it works out after the vote on assisted dying in June.

---

Richard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail address is [email protected].