Professor Trudo Lemmens:

On the question of what to do, I would say that in Canada we saw the remarkable development of a law that initially tried to focus, as the Supreme Court did, on the case of a person who was approaching her natural death. The focus was on cases that understandably evoke sympathy and on circumstances in which many people might want to control the dying process. However, as legislators, the committee must be aware that there will be pressure to expand and to enlarge, that there are particular implications for the medical system as a whole, for the doctor-patient relationship, and for the comfort that persons with disabilities will feel in the medical context when one starts to focus on a system where physicians are providing the ending of life.

It is undeniable, if one compares the systems of Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada with other assisted suicide regimes, that when a doctor provides the assistance the numbers will be higher. I find that I am now going in the direction of Professor Boer, having looked at the system in Oregon. I would urge the committee to look at the data as well. Is it worth changing a clear line in the sand when there may be problems along the road? Is there another way of dealing with issues? I must say I am not convinced that there are so many cases where the provision of the ending of life was the only solution and that there were no other ways to address the suffering of those patients. I would say that the committee must think carefully. It must also inform the public about the price that would be paid if the decision is to go in a certain direction. In that sense, Canada is an interesting country to look at.

I appreciate the comments of Deputy Lahart on the term MAID. I hate it as well. I am uncomfortable with the fact that it has been used to make it more acceptable. I had discussions about this with my mother-in-law who lives in Quebec. I had to explain to her that MAID is the same as what they have in Belgium and the Netherlands, which is euthanasia. At the beginning, people asked who could be against medical assistance in dying. Who could be against assistance in dying? Now we have a system that is outside of the end-of-life context. The term is really ridiculous. We are not talking about medical assistance in dying. We are medically inducing the death of people who are not dying. The term is problematic and I would say that we should call things for what they are and use the appropriate terms. In the Netherlands, people are much more upfront about this. We should say what it is and have a discussion about it with the terminology that is appropriate.