Dr. Kevin Yuill:

The Senator has asked if applicants mention homelessness or if that is the sole reason for their application. What happens in Canada is that because the system is based on a charter of rights, people have the right, if they meet certain criteria, to an assisted death. The homelessness issue is a question of filling out forms correctly and-or doctor shopping, which people are able to do in Canada. The information about that is that people mention homelessness when they are asked about it or after they have been accepted. I can think of one particular case and I am sorry that I have forgotten the name of the gentleman involved. A 50-something-year-old homeless person filled out the form and had agreement from one doctor but not from two, which is necessary in Canada. He told the newspapers that his suffering was the result of homelessness. The inherent problem with any assisted dying legislation is that it is based on a subjective idea of suffering, what it means and who is suffering. Only the person who is suffering can define that. If somebody is suffering, his or her suffering is usually made up of many different things. It is not simply physical pain. There can be many different components. The Senator asked if people mention homelessness. They do, but they also meet the criteria for other reasons as well.

We share the aim of reducing suffering. The real question is whether by passing this legislation we are meeting the aim of reducing suffering without creating more harm. My argument is simply that more harm will be created by implementing this legislation.

I completely agree with the point that these safeguards will not be retained. Canada introduced the legislation with the idea that assisted dying would be restricted to those whose death is reasonably foreseen. Canada removed that because there is no moral distinction to be made between someone with six months to live or who will die imminently and somebody with longer suffering.