is Deputy Editor at CMAJ
Today is a momentous day for physicians in Canada. No matter what your opinion about whether or not physician assisted dying is morally right, it will be a human right henceforth under certain circumstances.
We have aired a broad spectrum of views on this forum in the lead up to the Supreme Court of Canada’s , released this morning. Even CMAJ’s editors are divided in their personal opinions. We have discussed our personal views in many an editorial meeting, and CMAJ’s Editor-In-Chief, John Fletcher, put me on the spot to declare my position publicly when we were recording the of the journal.
Many Canadian physicians will feel unhappy about the decision, perhaps even angry or betrayed. CMAJ posted a link to the ruling on its this morning along with remarks made today by the CMA’s president, Dr Chris Simpson. There have already been negative comments, one suggesting that the CMA has let physicians down.
The CMA did change its stance on the issue of PAD recently, which resulted in both harsh criticism and . This followed a series of town halls, which the CMA conducted across the country in partnership with Macleans magazine to consult members of the public on end-of-life issues, and a fulsome of this process.
I think it is safe to say that we are seeing a disconnect between wider public opinion on the issue and how physicians feel about PAD. Public opinion has shifted substantially since the SCC issued a different verdict on a similar case 20 years ago, but the stance of the medical profession has perhaps shifted much less. I think that this has to do, in part, with physicians being the ones who will have to prescribe life ending medication (for the express purpose of terminating a life). For a profession charged with protecting health and saving lives there is, understandably, a difficult moral dilemma.
That said, I am in favour of allowing physician assisted death, with careful regulation and under outlined in today’s ruling, which are as follows.
The Court concluded that any new law must include safeguards …To allow for PAD to go ahead an indvidual would need to:
- Be a competent adult;
- clearly consent to the hastening of life;
- have a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability), and
- be suffering intolerably
The Supreme Court has allowed Parliament and the provincial legislatures 12 months to enact new legislation that upholds these fundamental human rights.
I feel that today’s SC decision is a victory for compassion, and also an opportunity for displaying humility. We have enough evidence from other jurisdictions to allay any fears I may have had regarding ‘the slippery slope’. I support freedom of the person and the right to choose, as I have done in other difficult debates. I would like the freedom to be able to make this choice for myself one day, should I wish to make it in some unimaginable and un-hoped-for future. I would like my children and any other loved-ones to have the freedom to support my wishes. This is what I told Dr Fletcher when he asked my view back in November.
Let’s face it. The majority who are healthy of body do not wish to die. No physician really wants to prescribe life-ending medication or participate in deliberate termination of life. But we are not omnipotent, we cannot prevent death and we are not able to relieve the terrible physical suffering of some patients. While the right of physicians to ‘conscientiously object’ to being party to PAD should not be questioned, I hope that objectors will be compassionate enough not to make it difficult for patients who make this choice to receive the assistance to which they are now entitled.