1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:06,120
What I want to do is offer a kind of (illegible)

2
00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:13,900
I'm going to paint with broad brush strokes. I'm going to start my story in 1972 for reasons I'll explain in a moment.

3
00:00:13,900 --> 00:00:22,680
So almost not quite 50 years ago. And bring you up to date on end of life issues and in particular,

4
00:00:22,680 --> 00:00:34,260
focussing on what in Canada we call mate medical assistance in death that encompasses both physician assisted suicide or assistance,

5
00:00:34,260 --> 00:00:38,680
medically assisted suicide and and mercy killing.

6
00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:47,890
So what I want to do is describe to you from where we've come and where we are now, and some rather dramatic changes are about to occur in Canada.

7
00:00:47,890 --> 00:00:56,790
It's a new bill that's just been introduced in parliament, though it's on hold during the pandemic where we're likely to be heading.

8
00:00:56,790 --> 00:01:03,300
And along the way, I'm going to charge or mention some of the some of the key arguments and some

9
00:01:03,300 --> 00:01:10,590
of the shift that has occurred in in both in the reasoning of Canadian courts.

10
00:01:10,590 --> 00:01:21,180
There've been a number of there's been a number of significant court decisions, but also in the in the philosophical debate in in Canada.

11
00:01:21,180 --> 00:01:27,420
So. Let me start by observing that.

12
00:01:27,420 --> 00:01:32,470
Bioethics probably didn't begin until the late 1960s.

13
00:01:32,470 --> 00:01:41,000
Now, when I say bioethics, I mean secular bioethics. Catholic bioethics had existed for a long time before that.

14
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:49,200
But the Hastings Centre was founded in the very late 60s, I think 1969.

15
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:59,550
And now we could take that as the kind of marker for the beginning of professional secular medical medical ethics.

16
00:01:59,550 --> 00:02:08,100
My own career in medical ethics began a few years after the founding of the Hastings Centre.

17
00:02:08,100 --> 00:02:23,130
In 1972, I was asked to introduce a course in medical ethics for our undergraduate medical students at the University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine.

18
00:02:23,130 --> 00:02:33,870
Just to put this in historical perspective, we were the first university first medical faculty in Canada to introduce an ethics course.

19
00:02:33,870 --> 00:02:38,310
Indeed, I was regarded as something of an interloper.

20
00:02:38,310 --> 00:02:50,180
The idea that you might have an ethicist in a hospital or an ethicist gaining access to the to the minds of medical students was still very new.

21
00:02:50,180 --> 00:02:55,790
And to many physicians and medical administrators, very strange at all events.

22
00:02:55,790 --> 00:03:07,500
In in seventy two, I was I was asked to create a course in medical ethics for our undergraduate medical students.

23
00:03:07,500 --> 00:03:15,810
And my colleagues thought, well, hey, if we're going to let this philosopher teach our students,

24
00:03:15,810 --> 00:03:21,270
we'd better make sure that he that he's had some experience on the wards.

25
00:03:21,270 --> 00:03:35,880
So I read. Was taken with a couple of my colleagues to do ward rounds in our large teaching hospital, Health Sciences Centre M.B.

26
00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:51,320
I want to tell you a story about the very first patient we saw die was given a physician's white coat, which I thought was somewhat deceptive.

27
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:55,610
The patient wasn't asked for permission for it.

28
00:03:55,610 --> 00:03:59,270
It was not asked to get permission for me to be present.

29
00:03:59,270 --> 00:04:10,580
But I came in and he accepted my presence and the two doctors, one was an oncologist and one a respirator allergist.

30
00:04:10,580 --> 00:04:21,320
This patient had metastatic lung cancer. He was a pig farmer and they chatted with him, ask him how he was feeling.

31
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:28,940
And then after a short chat, we went out into the hall to discuss his case.

32
00:04:28,940 --> 00:04:36,770
One doctor turned to the other and reported the or they were sharing their impressions of the results of some recent

33
00:04:36,770 --> 00:04:47,120
tests and apparently the tumour mass in his lung had shrunk and they were both feeling pleased and satisfied,

34
00:04:47,120 --> 00:04:53,090
congratulatory. Almost in my naivety, I asked, So what does that mean?

35
00:04:53,090 --> 00:04:58,400
He's going to survive live, perhaps to be discharged from hospital?

36
00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:05,930
And the reply was no. The tumour had disseminated throughout his body.

37
00:05:05,930 --> 00:05:12,010
The shrinking of the tumour mass did not mean that he would survive.

38
00:05:12,010 --> 00:05:20,950
Well, I said then, presumably he'll experience less pain, less suffering at the end of his life.

39
00:05:20,950 --> 00:05:30,000
No, that didn't follow either. And when I reflect back on this.

40
00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:37,080
Experience. It seemed at the time. And it's still 48 years later, seems to me bizarre.

41
00:05:37,080 --> 00:05:44,580
Why? Why should physicians. Why should clinicians take satisfaction and the shrinking of a tumour?

42
00:05:44,580 --> 00:05:50,230
If it isn't going to improve either the length of life or the quality of life of the patient.

43
00:05:50,230 --> 00:05:55,000
And I later discovered that this was not an uncommon and not an uncommon

44
00:05:55,000 --> 00:06:03,000
phenomenon in modern medicine that

45
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:14,640
a kind of professional bias or blindness that somehow prevents you from seeing something really obvious.

46
00:06:14,640 --> 00:06:20,460
In this case, that really obvious thing was that the oncology treatments,

47
00:06:20,460 --> 00:06:27,480
the powerful drugs that were making this patient very sick, weren't actually doing him any good.

48
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:35,400
Notwithstanding the fact that the tumour has shrunk. And I still find that today, almost 50 years later in medicine,

49
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:44,400
doctors often take a lot of satisfaction from reducing cholesterol levels, improving bone density,

50
00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:45,780
lowering blood pressure,

51
00:06:45,780 --> 00:06:54,860
even in circumstances where the clinical benefits are really dubious and sometimes the adverse consequences are pretty serious.

52
00:06:54,860 --> 00:07:03,760
You said that to the side. My next question to them was, Will does the patient know that he's dying?

53
00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:11,580
And they looked from one to the other and the answer was, well, we haven't told him he's dying,

54
00:07:11,580 --> 00:07:23,440
but we did tell him that he should be thinking of selling his pig farm because it was unlikely that he'd be able to go back to.

55
00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:32,090
Farming. This was still.

56
00:07:32,090 --> 00:07:38,930
I was a graduate student in Oxford, and it was an era of great paternalism in British medicine.

57
00:07:38,930 --> 00:07:45,560
It was still an era of great paternalism in North American medicine.

58
00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:53,420
Patients were often not told accurately and honestly the bleak prognosis.

59
00:07:53,420 --> 00:07:59,750
It was argued or it was widely believed that was wrong to take take away hope from a patient.

60
00:07:59,750 --> 00:08:07,820
And so information was titrated to the patients in the same way that drugs work by a paternalistic physician now.

61
00:08:07,820 --> 00:08:18,440
That was 1972 and we were entering the era of consumers rights, women's rights, children's rights.

62
00:08:18,440 --> 00:08:27,420
We can call it the age of autonomy. Today, patients are almost mugged with the truth.

63
00:08:27,420 --> 00:08:36,360
Relevant information is given to the patients, and it's widely believed that patient autonomy has to be respected and that unless a patient

64
00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:43,710
indicates that he or she doesn't want to have accurate and complete information on their case,

65
00:08:43,710 --> 00:08:50,220
that the default position is that patients should be told the truth so that they can plan their lives,

66
00:08:50,220 --> 00:09:00,780
say their farewells, make a will, make amends to people with whom they're they've had difficult encounters in the past.

67
00:09:00,780 --> 00:09:15,250
And so on. OK, that's sort of prelude by my very first patient encounter, patient autonomy wasn't really a very prominent value in Canadian medicine,

68
00:09:15,250 --> 00:09:27,330
and I'm going to offer the opinion that it wasn't a very prominent value in North American medicine and certainly not in British medicine.

69
00:09:27,330 --> 00:09:38,530
In the early 70s that that came later. So. I taught my course to these medical students, these undergraduate medical students,

70
00:09:38,530 --> 00:09:51,130
and one of the big issues we confronted was the phrase that was used at the time was pulling the plug, the withdrawal of life support,

71
00:09:51,130 --> 00:10:02,520
either because the patient had requested the discontinuation of a ventilator, a respirator, dialysis, or in some cases,

72
00:10:02,520 --> 00:10:09,980
the patient who had pneumonia or some other bacterial infection might request might refuse an antibiotic.

73
00:10:09,980 --> 00:10:19,360
And so the question was, well, if if I pull the plug, if a physician discontinued treatment, knowing that a patient will die,

74
00:10:19,360 --> 00:10:24,760
the withdrawal of life support or doesn't put the patient on life support in the first instance.

75
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:32,080
Could the patient is the patient guilty? Is the physician guilty of killing the patient?

76
00:10:32,080 --> 00:10:35,500
Might the physician be criminally responsible?

77
00:10:35,500 --> 00:10:46,060
Actually, there were items in the Criminal Code of Canada suggesting that once Life-Support had been initiated,

78
00:10:46,060 --> 00:10:54,010
if it were then discontinued, that this might count as a kind of homicide and that a physician might be liable.

79
00:10:54,010 --> 00:11:05,650
And some physicians were were very worried. Well, if I respect the patient's right, some thought it was a right to refuse medical treatment,

80
00:11:05,650 --> 00:11:15,520
either initially or to ask for it to be discontinued once it had been started in circumstances where death is likely or even certain to ensue.

81
00:11:15,520 --> 00:11:21,250
Is the fisher is the physician morally blameworthy? Might they be morally responsible?

82
00:11:21,250 --> 00:11:32,890
Might they even be held criminally responsible? The withholding and withdrawal of life support in Canada in the 70s was very common.

83
00:11:32,890 --> 00:11:45,040
And indeed, today most Canadians die in hospital and almost all died in circumstances where they could have been assisted to live longer,

84
00:11:45,040 --> 00:11:49,780
either because life support has not been withdrawn or because it's not being initiated.

85
00:11:49,780 --> 00:11:56,500
So it's it's truly a common procedure in candidate today.

86
00:11:56,500 --> 00:12:04,240
But in 1972, it it caused anxiety, caused the moral stress, and there was a lot of debate.

87
00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:10,300
And the point I want to make a draw to your attention.

88
00:12:10,300 --> 00:12:20,020
And stress and I'll come back to this later. Is it the most common argument against pulling the plug or withholding medical treatment?

89
00:12:20,020 --> 00:12:25,120
Was that. Well, there were two arguments.

90
00:12:25,120 --> 00:12:33,280
One was that it would expose the vulnerable to abuse or exploitation.

91
00:12:33,280 --> 00:12:45,010
That patient may be very anxious, maybe not entirely competent because of pain or because of drugs sedating them for the control of pain.

92
00:12:45,010 --> 00:12:51,190
And so patient wishes about end of life treatment, including the withholding and withdrawal of life support,

93
00:12:51,190 --> 00:12:55,300
were regarded as unreliable and to protect vulnerable patients.

94
00:12:55,300 --> 00:13:05,590
It was argued to avoid a slippery slope. It was necessary to for physicians if you could get blood in a vein, regardless of what the patient wanted.

95
00:13:05,590 --> 00:13:10,240
You should put blood in the vein if you could keep a patient alive. You should.

96
00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:14,500
Sometimes the value of the sanctity of life was invoked.

97
00:13:14,500 --> 00:13:24,150
Sometimes it was fear of a slippery slope, including the desensitisation or even brutalisation of physicians.

98
00:13:24,150 --> 00:13:32,890
Hey, if I if I pulled the plug, what will that do to my commitment to the life and health of my patient as my first consideration?

99
00:13:32,890 --> 00:13:38,590
The first principle of that of most versions of the Hippocratic Oath.

100
00:13:38,590 --> 00:13:50,640
So. The point to which I want to draw attention is that every argument being used today in England in opposition to legalising either

101
00:13:50,640 --> 00:14:01,440
physician assisted suicide or mercy killing was used in Canada in 1972 against the withdrawing or the withholding of life support.

102
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:06,220
In in particular, the slippery slope argument and what I think we know,

103
00:14:06,220 --> 00:14:15,040
because today I think it would be very difficult to find anyone in Canada or England or perhaps even America who would who would say

104
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:23,920
that a patient does not have the right to insist that Treatment Life-Support not be initiated or to insist that having been initiated,

105
00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:33,220
it now be withdrawn? I don't think you'd really have to struggle to find anyone who would who would oppose a patient's right.

106
00:14:33,220 --> 00:14:43,070
To refuse medical treatment, even in circumstances where the refusal would mean certain and very quick death.

107
00:14:43,070 --> 00:14:50,930
But there was great opposition to it, too, to that to recognising that right 50 years ago,

108
00:14:50,930 --> 00:14:56,730
based on slippery slope arguments, the obvious conclusion is that not all slopes are slippery.

109
00:14:56,730 --> 00:15:02,570
And when I hear arguments against the legalisation of medically or medical

110
00:15:02,570 --> 00:15:08,750
assistance in death or the extension of this to patients who aren't already dying

111
00:15:08,750 --> 00:15:12,830
or the extension of viable living wills to patients with Alzheimer's disease

112
00:15:12,830 --> 00:15:20,610
or its extension to patients who are suffering as a result of mental illness.

113
00:15:20,610 --> 00:15:30,000
Or two children in every case. It's the slippery slope argument that seems to be dominant and I think having some historical perspective,

114
00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:41,760
being able to recognise that the slippery the the projected or predicted slippery slope really needs to be supported with empirical evidence.

115
00:15:41,760 --> 00:15:49,050
Well, we didn't have all that much empirical evidence at that time, but we have lots more.

116
00:15:49,050 --> 00:15:56,190
We have lots more evidence today. OK, let me skip ahead.

117
00:15:56,190 --> 00:16:02,550
That was 1970 to my encounter with the pig farmer.

118
00:16:02,550 --> 00:16:07,890
And by beginning to teach biomedical ethics in a faculty of medicine,

119
00:16:07,890 --> 00:16:13,000
I want to skip ahead to nineteen ninety two in Canada and the province of Quebec.

120
00:16:13,000 --> 00:16:23,280
A case arose on the same point a young woman who in her late teens contracted Gien Barette syndrome.

121
00:16:23,280 --> 00:16:31,830
So she was completely paralysed. She was in hospital in the Hotel du Hospital in Quebec.

122
00:16:31,830 --> 00:16:44,070
And after several years of life on the respirator in a state of total paralysis, she she requested to be disconnected from the respirator.

123
00:16:44,070 --> 00:16:49,950
And the hospital was afraid because of the wording of the criminal code that they might

124
00:16:49,950 --> 00:16:55,000
be criminally liable or that they might be civilly sued if they disconnected her.

125
00:16:55,000 --> 00:17:02,950
Her name was Nancy B. The initial B was used.

126
00:17:02,950 --> 00:17:09,680
The judge in this case. Ruled that she had a right to refuse medical treatment.

127
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:19,460
Her testimony, by the way, was that she'd had several years of this and her exact words were.

128
00:17:19,460 --> 00:17:24,160
About life on a respirator. Where this is no life.

129
00:17:24,160 --> 00:17:26,870
And the judge respected her right to make that decision.

130
00:17:26,870 --> 00:17:33,220
Perhaps not the decision that every patient would make, but if it was the decision she made, she was a competent adult.

131
00:17:33,220 --> 00:17:40,400
And that's the first and almost the only legal case in Canada.

132
00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:47,600
I am surprised that the hospital didn't just pull the plug when she requested it because it was so common.

133
00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:49,790
But no one had ever taken it to court.

134
00:17:49,790 --> 00:18:00,500
So in nineteen ninety two we had a we had our first and just about only decision on a patient's autonomous right to refuse medical treatment.

135
00:18:00,500 --> 00:18:04,610
If, if, if they regarded it as not in their best interest,

136
00:18:04,610 --> 00:18:10,920
regardless of what the hospital or the physicians or the nurses or their family might, might say.

137
00:18:10,920 --> 00:18:20,000
So it was nineteen ninety two now the very next year with a very famous case in Canada that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

138
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:26,000
And it's the decision, the Supreme Court decision was given in 1993 and it was called the Sue Rodriguez case.

139
00:18:26,000 --> 00:18:35,600
Sue Rodriguez had degenerative neurological disease called ALS you'll all be familiar with ALS.

140
00:18:35,600 --> 00:18:41,720
And she regarded as she argued, that she wasn't ready to die yet.

141
00:18:41,720 --> 00:18:51,000
Her quality of life was still good. Actually, I'm going to interrupt myself and take us back to 1972,

142
00:18:51,000 --> 00:19:01,930
because something else of significance happened in 1972 that I should have mentioned, our prime minister at the time was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

143
00:19:01,930 --> 00:19:14,000
Father of our current prime minister, Justin Trudeau, and the Trudeau government changed the criminal code and decriminalised suicide.

144
00:19:14,000 --> 00:19:19,840
So now this was a law that had long since fallen into (illegible)

145
00:19:19,840 --> 00:19:28,150
No one no one who attempted suicide was me, was being prosecuted and sent to prison if they survived.

146
00:19:28,150 --> 00:19:38,950
But Trudeau in 1972 had suicide removed from the from the criminal code, but left in the criminal code as a crime,

147
00:19:38,950 --> 00:19:50,000
punishable with up to 14 years in prison, assisting, aiding, abetting or counselling suicide.

148
00:19:50,000 --> 00:19:57,020
Now let me go back to Sue Rodriguez that that was 1972, suicide was removed from the criminal code,

149
00:19:57,020 --> 00:20:01,000
but assisted suicide was it was still a serious criminal offence.

150
00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:13,160
In 1993, Sue Rodriguez, ALS patient, argued that she was able to take her own life at present,

151
00:20:13,160 --> 00:20:19,880
but her quality of life was still satisfactory for her.

152
00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:28,520
However, she knew that if she reached a point and she knew what she thought, she knew what that point would be when that point would be.

153
00:20:28,520 --> 00:20:37,730
I recall her saying, if I can no longer hug my grandchildren without all my ribs cracking at that point, I will be ready to end my life.

154
00:20:37,730 --> 00:20:39,350
On the other hand, by that point,

155
00:20:39,350 --> 00:20:53,690
I won't be able to take my own life and I should have a right to physician assistance or to medical assistance in in ending my life.

156
00:20:53,690 --> 00:21:03,740
If an able bodied person has this right, isn't it a violation of Canada's Charter of Rights, the equality provision section fifteen?

157
00:21:03,740 --> 00:21:11,420
I'm being I would be discriminated against. I am discriminated against by the criminalisation of physician assisted suicide compared to

158
00:21:11,420 --> 00:21:16,880
someone who's able bodied because they have the right to and the ability to take their own life.

159
00:21:16,880 --> 00:21:27,320
Whereas if a physician is willing to help me, that physician is legally prohibited from doing so and which would face severe legal sanctions.

160
00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:34,660
Her case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against her in 1993.

161
00:21:34,660 --> 00:21:36,380
It was a very narrow decision, by the way.

162
00:21:36,380 --> 00:21:45,800
It was five to four against with the woman who later became chief justice, Beverley McGlocklin, which is part of the minority of four.

163
00:21:45,800 --> 00:21:54,110
But the majority of five five cited the sanctity of life that placed great stress on slips on the slippery slope argument.

164
00:21:54,110 --> 00:22:02,570
What they said was they agreed that the government was violating her right to life, liberty and the security of the person.

165
00:22:02,570 --> 00:22:06,830
That's Article seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

166
00:22:06,830 --> 00:22:14,030
They agreed that it was violating her equality of the equality provision section fifteen of the charter.

167
00:22:14,030 --> 00:22:19,340
But they said based on Section one of the Charter of Rights,

168
00:22:19,340 --> 00:22:25,910
which specifies that none of the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is absolute,

169
00:22:25,910 --> 00:22:29,240
and they can all be restricted,

170
00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:38,780
limited or overridden if the government can demonstrate that it's reasonable to do so in a free and democratic society.

171
00:22:38,780 --> 00:22:47,720
And what the Supreme Court ruled in ninety three was that the government's goal or objective, which was to protect vulnerable Canadians, begin.

172
00:22:47,720 --> 00:22:59,300
We're back to the slippery slope argument, was a worthwhile objective for it, for the for the government to violate your charter rights in Canada,

173
00:22:59,300 --> 00:23:06,380
they have to have an exigent and urgent objective and it has to be an important one of the court said protecting vulnerable

174
00:23:06,380 --> 00:23:15,980
Canadians is such an objective and they rule that it was reasonable for the government to prohibit assisted suicide,

175
00:23:15,980 --> 00:23:24,560
even to someone as clear and competent and articulate and thoughtful as as Sue Rodriguez,

176
00:23:24,560 --> 00:23:33,080
the minority of four judges on the panel of nine, thought that it should have been legalised at all events.

177
00:23:33,080 --> 00:23:43,760
There was virtually no evidence that could be cited either in favour of their vulnerable people and those who are disabled.

178
00:23:43,760 --> 00:23:49,370
Those who are frail and elderly. Those who are.

179
00:23:49,370 --> 00:23:59,120
At the end of life, there was no evidence either that these people needed special protection or that this would protect them.

180
00:23:59,120 --> 00:24:05,210
But the court felt that it could get it and that it couldn't uphold suit.

181
00:24:05,210 --> 00:24:15,000
Sue Rodriguez's claim. And they found they found, they found against her.

182
00:24:15,000 --> 00:24:27,700
I want to remind you of something. 1993. Neither physician assisted suicide nor euthanasia was legal anywhere in the world.

183
00:24:27,700 --> 00:24:35,650
Actually, I've got to bite my tongue. Both have been legal in Switzerland since forever.

184
00:24:35,650 --> 00:24:43,840
And by the way, with virtually no, say, sort of a physician, assisted suicide has been legal in in Switzerland since.

185
00:24:43,840 --> 00:24:48,000
Since almost forever. For a very long time.

186
00:24:48,000 --> 00:25:03,000
But Oregon legalised it via its Death with Dignity Act in a legalised physician assisted suicide only in 1997.

187
00:25:03,000 --> 00:25:13,000
And it wasn't until 2002 that physician assisted suicide and euthanasia were legalised in the Netherlands and in

188
00:25:13,000 --> 00:25:17,460
Belgium. So I'm sorry, I just come back.

189
00:25:17,460 --> 00:25:24,490
Switzerland legalised assisted suicide. Didn't have to be a physician in 1942.

190
00:25:24,490 --> 00:25:31,000
So with the exception of Switzerland, when the Supreme Court of Canada made its ruling and the Rodriguez case,

191
00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:40,390
there was no evidence or very little evidence was mostly speculative about whether if we legalised physician assisted suicide or euthanasia,

192
00:25:40,390 --> 00:25:47,000
that it would lead to a slippery slope in the vote and great harm would come to vulnerable Canadians.

193
00:25:47,000 --> 00:25:57,830
So that was the situation in 1997, in 2015

194
00:25:57,830 --> 00:26:03,000
The case for physician assisted suicide and euthanasia came back to the Supreme Court.

195
00:26:03,000 --> 00:26:10,250
So actually, it was about 20 years later that it was argued in the superior court of British Columbia.

196
00:26:10,250 --> 00:26:14,900
And Supreme Court took the case and ruled on the case in 2015.

197
00:26:14,900 --> 00:26:23,630
So 20 years after the Rodriguez case of a woman called Lee Carter and another

198
00:26:23,630 --> 00:26:28,020
woman called Gloria Taylor and a couple of other plaintiffs challenged the law.

199
00:26:28,020 --> 00:26:35,240
Again, Lee Carter had gone to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich with her mother, Kate.

200
00:26:35,240 --> 00:26:42,770
Kate Carter was, I think, 87, 88 years old, had was in very severe pain.

201
00:26:42,770 --> 00:26:53,000
And she had spinal stenosis. And Carter was afraid that she could have could have been charged with a crime of assisting her

202
00:26:53,000 --> 00:27:00,090
mother's suicide because she accompanied her mother to Switzerland from British Columbia.

203
00:27:00,090 --> 00:27:05,000
And there had been a number of cases in in England. I know where there had been some question.

204
00:27:05,000 --> 00:27:12,000
If I if I go with an elderly relative to or a suffering relative to Switzerland.

205
00:27:12,000 --> 00:27:16,400
Will, I have will, I have broken the law? At all events.

206
00:27:16,400 --> 00:27:22,000
Lee Carter, the case daughter, brought this constitutional challenge, as did Gloria Taylor,

207
00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:30,000
who, like Sue Rodriguez, said 20 years earlier, Gloria Taylor had ALS.  This time

208
00:27:30,000 --> 00:27:36,230
The Supreme Court ruling two, we're talking about February of 2015.

209
00:27:36,230 --> 00:27:44,900
The Supreme Court ruling was unanimously in their favour. And I've read there were, I think, well over 100 expert witness statements.

210
00:27:44,900 --> 00:27:52,290
The testimony at trial in Vancouver read to thousands of pages.

211
00:27:52,290 --> 00:27:58,130
And interestingly, I couldn't find any reference to the sanctity of life.

212
00:27:58,130 --> 00:28:10,550
None. It had just disappeared. Was no longer part of the part of the argument, either the crown, the attorney general on behalf of Canada or the.

213
00:28:10,550 --> 00:28:15,680
That the plaintiffs, no one referred to the sanctity of life.

214
00:28:15,680 --> 00:28:22,850
The argument was entirely based on whether whether we needed in order to protect vulnerable patients,

215
00:28:22,850 --> 00:28:29,660
whether we needed an absolute ban or whether a regulatory approach with safeguards would be adequate.

216
00:28:29,660 --> 00:28:34,050
And this time there was lots of evidence and the trial judge.

217
00:28:34,050 --> 00:28:42,320
Madam Justice Lynn Smith, looking at all the evidence from from expert witnesses brought on behalf of the plaintiff.

218
00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:49,610
And the witnesses brought on behalf of the crown. She ruled that there was no evidence that the safeguards wouldn't work.

219
00:28:49,610 --> 00:28:58,730
That looking at what had happened in in Oregon, then in Washington state, in the Netherlands,

220
00:28:58,730 --> 00:29:04,320
in Belgium and Switzerland, the slippery slope argument just wasn't balance.

221
00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:14,990
The Supreme Court in February of 2015 accepted her judgement on that evidence and ruled

222
00:29:14,990 --> 00:29:22,700
that although the government's objective was worthwhile protecting vulnerable Canadians,

223
00:29:22,700 --> 00:29:32,900
the means adopted weren't proportional. There was no evidence that it was necessary to have a complete ban on physician assisted suicide.

224
00:29:32,900 --> 00:29:45,080
And there was every reason to think that the freedom and dignity of those who wish to have a Medick medical assistance in death could be respected.

225
00:29:45,080 --> 00:29:51,310
At the same time as safeguards could be put in place that would protect vulnerable Canadians.

226
00:29:51,310 --> 00:29:57,770
So the safeguards very briefly work that the person requesting medically assisted death.

227
00:29:57,770 --> 00:30:02,210
And I say that we say medically assisted rather than physician assisted because of the

228
00:30:02,210 --> 00:30:08,870
assistance can be provided in Canada by a nurse practitioner as well as by a physician.

229
00:30:08,870 --> 00:30:19,640
So the the argument was that if it's ascertained that the patient making the request is is competent,

230
00:30:19,640 --> 00:30:30,320
is making a voluntary request, is suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition,

231
00:30:30,320 --> 00:30:37,670
is suffering intolerably in a way that can't that can't be relieved,

232
00:30:37,670 --> 00:30:44,030
then patients have have have a right to make the request and to have their request granted.

233
00:30:44,030 --> 00:30:56,890
So that decision was reached by the Supreme Court of Canada in in nineteen nineteen ninety three, the Rodriguez case.

234
00:30:56,890 --> 00:31:00,640
In ninety nine oh, and the I should say,

235
00:31:00,640 --> 00:31:09,640
the Supreme Court threw out the criminal code provisions but allowed them to stay and gave the government six months.

236
00:31:09,640 --> 00:31:13,210
Well, for various reasons, the government took more than a year.

237
00:31:13,210 --> 00:31:23,320
But in June of June 17th of 2000 and sixteen, the government brought in its made legislation.

238
00:31:23,320 --> 00:31:36,130
And here I think I want just very quickly to tell you about the legislation that was brought in, a bill, C14.

239
00:31:36,130 --> 00:31:39,190
It's called.

240
00:31:39,190 --> 00:31:50,590
In June of 2016 by the federal government, by the way, for the Americans who may be participating in this criminal law in Canada is federal.

241
00:31:50,590 --> 00:31:55,300
Unlike in the United States, where where each state can have its own criminal provision.

242
00:31:55,300 --> 00:32:00,660
So we legalised in.

243
00:32:00,660 --> 00:32:04,260
In June of 2016 in Canada,

244
00:32:04,260 --> 00:32:15,720
we legalised both physician assisted suicide and mercy killing a number of American states now have legalised physician assisted suicide.

245
00:32:15,720 --> 00:32:18,370
None, to my knowledge, has legalised mercy killing.

246
00:32:18,370 --> 00:32:31,000
So in Canada, as in Belgium and the Netherlands, both are both are legalised under the heading of medical assistance and death.

247
00:32:31,000 --> 00:32:38,130
So the the legislation of the government was more restrictive, however, than the Supreme Court's legislation.

248
00:32:38,130 --> 00:32:47,130
And this has been a source of stream of litigation and the government's about to revise its revise its legislation.

249
00:32:47,130 --> 00:32:56,520
So let me just briefly describe the contested provisions and what's likely to happen next.

250
00:32:56,520 --> 00:33:06,360
So, first of all, the Supreme Court did not say this contrast for our the American participants in particular,

251
00:33:06,360 --> 00:33:13,380
contrast with the legislation and in the not in those states which have legalised physician assisted suicide.

252
00:33:13,380 --> 00:33:20,270
They did not say that you have to be DI. The Supreme Court didn't.

253
00:33:20,270 --> 00:33:29,970
But the government's legislation as a requirement for eligibility said that death had to be reasonably foreseeable.

254
00:33:29,970 --> 00:33:40,010
Well, as we knew at the time, everyone had their own interpretation of what reasonable foresee a foreseeability means.

255
00:33:40,010 --> 00:33:46,920
Did it mean that you had to be dying imminently, let's say, within six months or or a year?

256
00:33:46,920 --> 00:33:52,740
Did it mean. Could it if you had a less but might live a Stephen Hawking death?

257
00:33:52,740 --> 00:34:01,230
Stephen Hawking's lived for many decades after his diagnosis. The average length of life is three, four, five years for HLS patients.

258
00:34:01,230 --> 00:34:05,850
Is that a reasonably foreseeable death or not?

259
00:34:05,850 --> 00:34:14,040
What if you're just very old? We had a we had a case in the very next year after the legalisation of made in Canada.

260
00:34:14,040 --> 00:34:23,070
There was a case called a B in Ontario involving a patient with a woman who had osteoarthritis.

261
00:34:23,070 --> 00:34:29,160
And the judge said her death was reasonably foreseeable because she was seventy seven years old.

262
00:34:29,160 --> 00:34:35,820
So you can see that there were many different interpretations of what reasonable foreseeability meant.

263
00:34:35,820 --> 00:34:46,030
And there were constitutional challenges. People said it's discrimination against me if I'm suffering intolerably.

264
00:34:46,030 --> 00:34:52,180
If I've got a grievous medical condition. That's irremediable.

265
00:34:52,180 --> 00:35:05,820
I should have the same right to medical assistance in death as as a patient who is is imminently dying.

266
00:35:05,820 --> 00:35:10,480
A case came up last year, 2019, in Quebec.

267
00:35:10,480 --> 00:35:14,590
Actually, two cases came up. They were heard together. Glad to.

268
00:35:14,590 --> 00:35:26,890
And to Sean and Madam Justice Bode Well ruled that the reasonably foreseeable, reasonable foreseeability requirement was unconstitutional.

269
00:35:26,890 --> 00:35:32,440
And she pointed out that the government offered not a shred of evidence in defending the

270
00:35:32,440 --> 00:35:37,000
reasonable foreseeability clause that it was necessary to protect vulnerable Canadians.

271
00:35:37,000 --> 00:35:47,170
That is, that she didn't think it was necessary and she felt it was a violation of the fundamental rights of both Mr. True Shaw and Ms.

272
00:35:47,170 --> 00:35:59,140
Gladue. And she she threw out the law. She threw it out as a separate Quebec provision about your patient having to be at the end of life.

273
00:35:59,140 --> 00:36:05,050
And she threw out the federal government's bill C14 provision.

274
00:36:05,050 --> 00:36:09,100
So the government had to come, had to change the legislation.

275
00:36:09,100 --> 00:36:11,200
And we now have a new bill.

276
00:36:11,200 --> 00:36:23,650
Bill C seven, which has not passed through parliament yet and which has partly eliminated the reasonable foreseeability requirement.

277
00:36:23,650 --> 00:36:32,020
So it's not a requirement that your death be reasonably foreseeable under the proposed new legislation.

278
00:36:32,020 --> 00:36:35,770
So that I suppose that counts as progress.

279
00:36:35,770 --> 00:36:44,320
But the government has now defined as they've kept reasonable foreseeability in the new in the new proposed legislation.

280
00:36:44,320 --> 00:36:50,800
They've kept it in this way if if your death is imminent.

281
00:36:50,800 --> 00:36:57,520
Then there doesn't have to be the 10 day waiting period and you don't have to be.

282
00:36:57,520 --> 00:37:05,660
I didn't mention, but the original legislation passed by the government require that you be that you had to be competent when you

283
00:37:05,660 --> 00:37:12,640
got your certificate entitling you to mate and you had to be competent at the point at which it was administered,

284
00:37:12,640 --> 00:37:16,350
which which means that has a rose.

285
00:37:16,350 --> 00:37:25,900
In one case, if you've got cancer and it's spreading to your brain, you might lose eligibility before you received make you couldn't afford to wait.

286
00:37:25,900 --> 00:37:30,280
And the same is true for some all simers patients.

287
00:37:30,280 --> 00:37:37,660
If if the Alzheimer's disease if the dementia is advancing in an erratic and difficult to predict way,

288
00:37:37,660 --> 00:37:41,920
you might get your certificate for made because you're competent at the moment.

289
00:37:41,920 --> 00:37:48,190
Lose confidence and then you wouldn't be eligible. So reasonable foreseeability is is gone.

290
00:37:48,190 --> 00:37:54,010
But if you aren't imminently in the new proposed legislation. But if you aren't imminently dying,

291
00:37:54,010 --> 00:38:03,730
the government now says you've got to be suffering intolerably in order to be eligible and there has to be a 90 day waiting period.

292
00:38:03,730 --> 00:38:11,500
In other words, the new proposed bill requires 90 days of intolerable suffering.

293
00:38:11,500 --> 00:38:17,680
For many Canadians, that's so that's a step backwards rather than a progressive step.

294
00:38:17,680 --> 00:38:21,790
So I am sure it's going to be challenged in parliament. We have a minority government.

295
00:38:21,790 --> 00:38:29,170
I don't know what. What will happen with that provision was a lot of the government had a consultation.

296
00:38:29,170 --> 00:38:37,180
Several hundred thousand Canadians participated online just a few months ago.

297
00:38:37,180 --> 00:38:44,380
And overwhelmingly, Canadians want the eligibility criteria to be made more permissible.

298
00:38:44,380 --> 00:38:53,770
They think that you should be able via an advance directive to specify that you want to medically assisted death should you lose competence.

299
00:38:53,770 --> 00:39:05,350
That would help early stage all time risk patients who are many of them are having to opt for death prematurely because if they wait,

300
00:39:05,350 --> 00:39:11,430
it's playing Russian roulette. They may lose competence and and may not be eligible.

301
00:39:11,430 --> 00:39:19,050
Final point, the new proposed legislation explicitly excludes.

302
00:39:19,050 --> 00:39:27,930
Patients for whom the underlying medical, the sole underlying medical condition that's causing their suffering is mental illness.

303
00:39:27,930 --> 00:39:33,480
And many of my colleagues believe that to rule out Aben issue,

304
00:39:33,480 --> 00:39:42,000
every case of mental illness as a potential case for a medically assisted death is discrimination against the mentally ill.

305
00:39:42,000 --> 00:39:51,610
That is many of my colleagues would argue, and I have a lot of sympathy with this, that being mentally ill doesn't mean that you aren't.

306
00:39:51,610 --> 00:39:55,300
That you're never competent to make medical decisions.

307
00:39:55,300 --> 00:40:05,320
And as a matter of fact, medically, you know, people are allowed to specify which treatments they want to be withheld or withdrawn in the future.

308
00:40:05,320 --> 00:40:12,640
But they're not allowed to request made under it or they wouldn't be under the government's new proposed legislation.

309
00:40:12,640 --> 00:40:24,520
So let me just conclude by flagging just about the 45 minutes in which I was zanmi by flagging the areas of controversy and candidate today.

310
00:40:24,520 --> 00:40:33,530
So one is a reasonable foreseeability. Should we require that?

311
00:40:33,530 --> 00:40:45,650
That you have to be dying or if you're not dying. Should we impose a 90 day, 90 days of intolerable suffering?

312
00:40:45,650 --> 00:40:53,270
That's one controversial issue. Second controversial issue has to do with living wills, advance directives,

313
00:40:53,270 --> 00:41:02,810
should you be able to request medical, medical assistance and death via an advance directive?

314
00:41:02,810 --> 00:41:09,650
Just as you can already do it for the withholding or withdrawal of life support,

315
00:41:09,650 --> 00:41:17,270
the government has made no provision in its draught, in its new draught legislation for advance directives.

316
00:41:17,270 --> 00:41:24,320
And several hundred thousand Canadians who have Alzheimer's are somewhat concerned that this that the menu of

317
00:41:24,320 --> 00:41:32,330
end of life option in Canada and won't include a figure unless the government's new legislation is amended,

318
00:41:32,330 --> 00:41:37,640
won't include the option of an advance directive for four made.

319
00:41:37,640 --> 00:41:44,870
There's also some controversy about an age limit in most American jurisdictions.

320
00:41:44,870 --> 00:41:50,780
You have to be at least 18 to be eligible for physician assisted death.

321
00:41:50,780 --> 00:41:55,970
The Supreme Court said they require specify that you have to be an adult.

322
00:41:55,970 --> 00:42:00,650
But many people thought that adults could include a mature minor.

323
00:42:00,650 --> 00:42:06,560
And as many of you will know in both the well, Belgium has eliminated any age limit.

324
00:42:06,560 --> 00:42:16,940
And the Netherlands has allows children as as young as 12 to twelve and 16 if their if their parents consent and if they're suffering

325
00:42:16,940 --> 00:42:28,520
intolerably and if they have sufficient cognitive capacity to have to have a mercy killing administered under the government's legislation,

326
00:42:28,520 --> 00:42:34,330
you have to be 18. And it looks as if they're not going to allow the mature minor doctrine.

327
00:42:34,330 --> 00:42:43,910
And in Canada, virtually every province has mature minor legislation which lets children under 16 opt for abortions

328
00:42:43,910 --> 00:42:51,140
or birth control or make other important medical decisions on their own if the circumstances warrant.

329
00:42:51,140 --> 00:43:00,830
And if they are sufficiently mature, well, no matter how tense and unbelievable and hopeless your suffering is in Canada,

330
00:43:00,830 --> 00:43:07,160
the government seems not prepared to modify its its age limit.

331
00:43:07,160 --> 00:43:14,420
So we have issues to do with Alzheimer's disease. We have a lot of controversy around mental illness,

332
00:43:14,420 --> 00:43:20,510
whether someone with a mild or moderate mental illness who is still competent and who is suffering.

333
00:43:20,510 --> 00:43:24,620
If you meet all the conditions not withstanding your medical illness,

334
00:43:24,620 --> 00:43:33,360
so you're competent, you have a good a good appreciation of what your alternatives are.

335
00:43:33,360 --> 00:43:38,030
Your suffering intolerably, your diseases irremediable.

336
00:43:38,030 --> 00:43:45,020
There is an issue amongst psychiatrist whether you could ever say that a mentally ill person.

337
00:43:45,020 --> 00:43:55,840
That their condition was irremediable or hopeless. But if you met all those conditions and you were suffering intolerably and you were complet.

338
00:43:55,840 --> 00:44:01,810
The government is proposing, nevertheless, to exclude you. So I think there's almost certain if this legislation passes,

339
00:44:01,810 --> 00:44:09,730
it's almost certain that there will be another constitutional challenge at some point in the not too distant future.

340
00:44:09,730 --> 00:44:19,030
OK, so that's my very broad brush stroke painting of the last 50 years in Canada.

341
00:44:19,030 --> 00:44:27,090
And I'll now throw it back to Doug again. And he will throw it to you for answering your questions, comments, criticisms.

342
00:44:27,090 --> 00:44:33,420
All right. Thank you, Arthur. So you do do keep on putting in your question.

343
00:44:33,420 --> 00:44:39,100
Say a couple of them there at the moment. I also have a couple that were sent in an advance.

344
00:44:39,100 --> 00:44:48,130
So maybe I'll start with those for people who may be thinking about some of the other questions they want to add.

345
00:44:48,130 --> 00:44:55,030
So what a series of questions kind of on a theme here.

346
00:44:55,030 --> 00:44:59,260
So I'll start with the. I want to turn 20 questions all at once.

347
00:44:59,260 --> 00:45:00,100
I'll start with the first one.

348
00:45:00,100 --> 00:45:09,230
So what protections of any would there be for medical practitioners in Canada with conscientious objections to euthanasia?

349
00:45:09,230 --> 00:45:13,140
OK. Do you want to give me several and then I'll get those on this.

350
00:45:13,140 --> 00:45:22,520
On this theme tonight, you probably OK. So a follow up on that really would be the should doctors be encouraged to leave the profession?

351
00:45:22,520 --> 00:45:31,890
Yeah, well, you know, Guy, that has been a pressure that's been a controversy whether whether a physician who

352
00:45:31,890 --> 00:45:40,170
had conscientious objections to two made could opt out or could could refuse.

353
00:45:40,170 --> 00:45:55,980
Related to that, we have in Canada a number of publicly funded religious affiliated hospitals, Catholic affiliation, hospitals and nursing homes.

354
00:45:55,980 --> 00:45:58,440
And the issue has arisen. Well,

355
00:45:58,440 --> 00:46:07,710
if I'm at the end of life and I'm living in a Catholic nursing home or I'm a patient in a Catholic hospital and I wish to be

356
00:46:07,710 --> 00:46:16,390
assessed for made I wish to receive made in the hospital or in the nursing home where I trapped perhaps in the palliative care ward,

357
00:46:16,390 --> 00:46:22,590
I can the hospital opt out? Can a doctor or nurse or pharmacist opt out?

358
00:46:22,590 --> 00:46:29,700
Can a health care institution opt out? Now, in Canada, that's largely a provincial matter.

359
00:46:29,700 --> 00:46:42,060
And I, I sat on the provincial territorial expert panel, which made a series of recommendations to provinces and.

360
00:46:42,060 --> 00:46:47,670
And territories in Canada as to how they should deal with this issue and various colleges

361
00:46:47,670 --> 00:46:51,600
of physicians and surgeons have weighed in and gave each of them is provincial.

362
00:46:51,600 --> 00:46:58,450
So you'll get different recommendations in in different provinces.

363
00:46:58,450 --> 00:47:05,470
If you were the except in rare circumstances, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers,

364
00:47:05,470 --> 00:47:15,520
I think would not be obliged to provide maid services to to a patient if you were the only physician or nurse in a remote area,

365
00:47:15,520 --> 00:47:21,660
let's say, of northern Canada. And patients would be denied.

366
00:47:21,660 --> 00:47:27,210
This health service, it's covered under our Medicare programme.

367
00:47:27,210 --> 00:47:28,890
If this is viewed as an important,

368
00:47:28,890 --> 00:47:39,360
medically necessary service by this patient and they would otherwise be denied what a physician nevertheless have the right to opt out.

369
00:47:39,360 --> 00:47:51,840
My own view is that is that if you have conscientious objections as a pharmacist to providing birth control or abortion pills,

370
00:47:51,840 --> 00:47:55,950
you shouldn't be the only practising where you are, where you're the only pharmacy.

371
00:47:55,950 --> 00:48:02,580
And your conscientious objector principles mean that people living in the area don't have access.

372
00:48:02,580 --> 00:48:13,070
So in most cases, with the exception I just mentioned, physicians do have the right to opt out.

373
00:48:13,070 --> 00:48:18,920
But the more controversial opt out from providing made what?

374
00:48:18,920 --> 00:48:28,660
What if a patient asks the physician the question about made, does the physician have an obligation to refer the patient to another doctor?

375
00:48:28,660 --> 00:48:37,360
And here, the provinces, very other the colleges of physicians and surgeons in different provinces have made different rulings.

376
00:48:37,360 --> 00:48:43,930
I'll offer my own. Ontario requires a referral. My own view is that that's correct.

377
00:48:43,930 --> 00:48:51,460
Patients, the needs of patients have to trump the ethical scruples of the physician.

378
00:48:51,460 --> 00:48:54,100
Not that the physician should have to provide the service,

379
00:48:54,100 --> 00:48:59,770
but the physician should have to make the patient aware of how to gain access to the service.

380
00:48:59,770 --> 00:49:07,420
If the physician isn't, or the nurse or the pharmacist isn't willing to provide it himself or or or herself.

381
00:49:07,420 --> 00:49:16,240
The issue of public hospitals, publicly financed hospitals that are religiously affiliated or nursing homes.

382
00:49:16,240 --> 00:49:29,470
Here I have very little sympathy for those Catholic and Jewish and other nursing homes that have refused even to allow patients to be assessed.

383
00:49:29,470 --> 00:49:32,470
But this is where they're living. These are mostly in.

384
00:49:32,470 --> 00:49:43,510
I should have mentioned in Canada above, one percent of all deaths are at the moment are via mate.

385
00:49:43,510 --> 00:49:46,240
In Oregon, it's a small fraction of one percent.

386
00:49:46,240 --> 00:49:58,210
In the Netherlands and Belgium, it's ranges between three and four percent, mostly in Canada as in other jurisdictions.

387
00:49:58,210 --> 00:50:04,330
The patients who request and receive made have end stage cancer metastatic cancer,

388
00:50:04,330 --> 00:50:10,660
or they have a chronic degenerative diseases such as such as illness.

389
00:50:10,660 --> 00:50:16,450
So that's the overwhelming. And if if you happen to be living in a nursing home,

390
00:50:16,450 --> 00:50:25,810
maybe the only one in your region that's Catholic affiliated or Jewish affiliated or Muslim affiliated or evangelical Protestant affiliated,

391
00:50:25,810 --> 00:50:34,960
it seems to me a denial of your fundamental human rights and your constitutionally protected rights that you can't be assessed or can't have this.

392
00:50:34,960 --> 00:50:39,460
Can't have the made procedure where you're living in your home.

393
00:50:39,460 --> 00:50:44,050
But we've had cases of patients sent out of the hospital,

394
00:50:44,050 --> 00:50:52,170
one who died in an ambulance on the way to an office where she was going to receive an assisted death.

395
00:50:52,170 --> 00:51:01,330
I find that very undignified. At all events, the regulations differ from from each province and from each provincial college.

396
00:51:01,330 --> 00:51:08,910
Thank you so much. So that's a slightly different one.

397
00:51:08,910 --> 00:51:17,650
What can UK supporters of assisted dying learn from the Canadian experience?

398
00:51:17,650 --> 00:51:23,060
You're in a position to save a private have on that.

399
00:51:23,060 --> 00:51:31,460
Yeah. I mean, that's a good question. I right, Faith. Read The Guardian every day and have for years.

400
00:51:31,460 --> 00:51:33,860
And so I've been following the debate.

401
00:51:33,860 --> 00:51:45,090
And it strikes me that popular support for assisted physician assisted suicide and mercy killing is as high in the United Kingdom,

402
00:51:45,090 --> 00:51:53,090
or maybe I should say in England. I'm not so sure, but Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

403
00:51:53,090 --> 00:52:04,760
But I imagine Northern Ireland might be an exception. It's as high in the UK as it as it is in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Oregon or in Canada.

404
00:52:04,760 --> 00:52:13,650
The levels of support are over 80 percent, depending on the exact question and how it's worded.

405
00:52:13,650 --> 00:52:18,140
There is overwhelming support in Canada, as there was for decades before it was legalised.

406
00:52:18,140 --> 00:52:28,280
So my first piece of advice is to acquire Fundamental Charter of Rights and Freedoms that can overturn laws that

407
00:52:28,280 --> 00:52:36,770
are unduly restrictive of individual liberty and unequal treatment of people who are unable to take their own,

408
00:52:36,770 --> 00:52:47,530
their own life. So it's because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that these court cases have and have been effective in forcing our legislatures.

409
00:52:47,530 --> 00:53:00,830
Because I am certain that if it hadn't been for the Khadr case in February of 2015, we would not have had Bill C14 in June, on June the 17th of 2016.

410
00:53:00,830 --> 00:53:05,970
In particular, the government in power in 2015 was a conservative government.

411
00:53:05,970 --> 00:53:08,360
It was ideologically hostile.

412
00:53:08,360 --> 00:53:17,780
And even though the Supreme Court gave them six, gave them only a certain length of time to change the law, they stalled and they stalled.

413
00:53:17,780 --> 00:53:22,400
And then a new liberal government came in and they were ready to move immediately.

414
00:53:22,400 --> 00:53:27,710
So. So we had to wait about a year and a half after the Supreme Court threw out the legislation.

415
00:53:27,710 --> 00:53:34,850
But I think having a fundamental charter of Rights and Freedoms has made the struggle much easier encountered in Britain.

416
00:53:34,850 --> 00:53:40,490
I think there would just have to be a very effective campaign.

417
00:53:40,490 --> 00:53:52,620
And sometimes a single case can catalyse public opinion and mobilise it in such a way that the government of the day feels compelled to act.

418
00:53:52,620 --> 00:54:07,470
You need a liberal home secretary such as Roy Jenkins with respect to the legalisation of of homosexuality in Britain.

419
00:54:07,470 --> 00:54:14,300
It's gonna be that kind of sea change. I think public opinion is very supportive.

420
00:54:14,300 --> 00:54:23,170
The issue then becomes a political one. How you how you translate that public support into into legislation.

421
00:54:23,170 --> 00:54:30,830
I think he's probably answered this fairly quickly because it just kind of expand slightly on the first question.

422
00:54:30,830 --> 00:54:36,830
You mentioned these nursing homes, some of these Catholic nursing homes that have been continuously objecting.

423
00:54:36,830 --> 00:54:42,620
But to what extent would you say has made being accepted by health professionals in Canada in general?

424
00:54:42,620 --> 00:54:50,290
Are there many people conscientiously objecting or is that is a fairly small minority?

425
00:54:50,290 --> 00:55:01,810
I saw an opinion poll. And not so long ago that suggested that over 80 percent of physicians are supportive of it.

426
00:55:01,810 --> 00:55:13,060
Actually, it's between 80 and 85 percent. And it didn't matter which they broke the or the overall level of support for made was 80 percent or over.

427
00:55:13,060 --> 00:55:18,830
And different subcategories. But even amongst Catholics in Canada was over 80 percent.

428
00:55:18,830 --> 00:55:25,330
And amongst physicians, it's clearly over 70 percent who support the legalisation.

429
00:55:25,330 --> 00:55:31,600
Now, the number who participate or feel comfortable participating. I think initially it will be comparatively low.

430
00:55:31,600 --> 00:55:42,590
So that may lead to problems of access. But over time, I can tell you in the in in the Netherlands, if you had a patient with you,

431
00:55:42,590 --> 00:55:53,860
if you ask Dutch physicians whether a patient with metastatic cancer who's suffering terribly should have the right to euthanasia,

432
00:55:53,860 --> 00:55:59,370
it be difficult to find any who would say no. In Canada, it would be higher,

433
00:55:59,370 --> 00:56:06,090
but it would be somewhat small and it would be confined almost exclusively to a religious

434
00:56:06,090 --> 00:56:15,660
minority and even amongst Catholics or Orthodox Jews or fundamentalist Protestants.

435
00:56:15,660 --> 00:56:26,810
Support for the right of patients to have made as an option at the end of life seems very high, by the way.

436
00:56:26,810 --> 00:56:38,520
So I could have mentioned this earlier, but did one of the options we've had in Canada long years before the legalisation of medically assisted death.

437
00:56:38,520 --> 00:56:48,150
Was the auction of sedation to unconsciousness, which is sometimes called terminal sedation and sometimes called palliative sedation.

438
00:56:48,150 --> 00:56:59,850
Well, thousands of Canadians who are suffering intolerably at the end of life have had the option even without the legalisation of euthanasia,

439
00:56:59,850 --> 00:57:04,880
physician assisted suicide have had the option of a terminal sedation.

440
00:57:04,880 --> 00:57:17,760
They are sedated to unconsciousness, food and water, hydration and nutrition are withheld and the patient dies in about two weeks.

441
00:57:17,760 --> 00:57:27,060
That also hastens death. And interestingly, and I just throw this out for people, is something that deserves reflection.

442
00:57:27,060 --> 00:57:38,110
In Canada, we have virtually no safeguards. Protecting vulnerable people when it comes to the withholding or withdrawal of life support.

443
00:57:38,110 --> 00:57:44,710
We have virtually no safeguards when it comes to sedation, to unconsciousness.

444
00:57:44,710 --> 00:57:52,030
We have virtually no safeguards when it comes to a kind of palliative care that might involve dramatically

445
00:57:52,030 --> 00:58:02,620
increasing the level of analgesia to a point where you might have a respiratory collapse or cardiac arrest.

446
00:58:02,620 --> 00:58:07,900
But when it comes to physician assisted suicide or medically assisted suicide or euthanasia,

447
00:58:07,900 --> 00:58:16,440
we have very elaborate, complicated hoops through which a patient has to jump.

448
00:58:16,440 --> 00:58:20,510
I mean, I would ask the question if. If.

449
00:58:20,510 --> 00:58:31,100
If a patient who's suffering greatly, whether dying or not, has a right to refuse dialysis, if they're if they have end stage renal failure,

450
00:58:31,100 --> 00:58:40,070
they have the right to refuse a respirator to or to have a respirator disconnected or to refuse an antibiotic if they have a bacterial infection,

451
00:58:40,070 --> 00:58:49,880
knowing that death is certain. If all those rights are established and have not led to great abuses of vulnerable people.

452
00:58:49,880 --> 00:58:54,740
I've got interrupted. So we get just one other quick point before the next question.

453
00:58:54,740 --> 00:59:05,690
The US. We've got only preliminary. We've made has been legal in Canada for it'll be four years on June the 17th.

454
00:59:05,690 --> 00:59:15,590
So not quite four years. As in Oregon, interestingly, the people who are using made are disproportionately.

455
00:59:15,590 --> 00:59:21,680
The wealthier and better educated and actually somewhat younger Canadians.

456
00:59:21,680 --> 00:59:27,590
So the fear, the slippery, the big slippery slope. Fear was that the numbers would expand dramatically.

457
00:59:27,590 --> 00:59:31,560
That hasn't happened in Oregon or in Canada.

458
00:59:31,560 --> 00:59:43,130
And that there wouldn't be that made would be used as a way of bumping off racial minorities, frail, elderly people, the poor.

459
00:59:43,130 --> 00:59:49,920
I can see that that would be a concern in the states where lack of health insurance in Canada.

460
00:59:49,920 --> 00:59:56,480
Oh, and another fear was that made would mean a neglect of starving of funds for palliative care.

461
00:59:56,480 --> 01:00:04,430
So palliative care physicians were one subsection of the medical community that was previously very strongly opposed to make.

462
01:00:04,430 --> 01:00:10,940
They felt it was almost an insult to their then professionally. What we can't control, of course, we can draw pain.

463
01:00:10,940 --> 01:00:16,660
But more important, they felt that it would be an altar that made would be an alternative to good palliative care.

464
01:00:16,660 --> 01:00:25,910
Now, in horror, virtually everyone who receives physician assisted suicide is either in hospice or getting palliative care.

465
01:00:25,910 --> 01:00:32,720
And the same is true in Canada. This is not an option for people who don't have access to palliative care.

466
01:00:32,720 --> 01:00:38,630
And it's actually led to the legalisation of medical assistance in death,

467
01:00:38,630 --> 01:00:46,580
as in most European countries and in most North American jurisdictions has led to an improvement in palliative care.

468
01:00:46,580 --> 01:00:55,910
So the slippery slope that was forecast at the bottom of which would be no money for palliative care instead will bump you off cheaply and quickly.

469
01:00:55,910 --> 01:01:07,220
That's just been empirically falsified everywhere. So the palliative care doctors have come round to it then, given the way it's unfolded.

470
01:01:07,220 --> 01:01:14,600
I haven't seen a recent polling of palliative care doctors, but anecdotally, the answer is yes.

471
01:01:14,600 --> 01:01:19,730
And a number of palliative care physicians are participating on the maid committees

472
01:01:19,730 --> 01:01:26,870
that are both approving of requests and and administering made in Canada.

473
01:01:26,870 --> 01:01:39,810
So I couldn't guess how that I'm almost certain that the percentage who approve or at least are willing to accept are no longer opposed.

474
01:01:39,810 --> 01:01:50,270
Has has gone up. But I. But I, I can't say by by how much.

475
01:01:50,270 --> 01:02:00,710
So what do you said the two rationales for restriction, sanctity of life and protection of the vulnerable.

476
01:02:00,710 --> 01:02:07,740
But the first seems to have been dropped. The no mention of sanctity of life.

477
01:02:07,740 --> 01:02:12,020
And the most recent discussion of the legislation so can't work.

478
01:02:12,020 --> 01:02:19,190
So the question is, can the new legislation reasonably be justified on the basis of protection of the vulnerable?

479
01:02:19,190 --> 01:02:29,840
Or has they, in fact, smuggled sanctity of life implicitly into the justification kind of in the background?

480
01:02:29,840 --> 01:02:36,700
Yeah. Well, let me just say a word about sanctity of life.

481
01:02:36,700 --> 01:02:47,420
If I had a dollar for every radio, TV and newspaper debate in which I've participated in the last 50 years.

482
01:02:47,420 --> 01:02:54,980
They virtually all until the last few years involved invocation of the sanctity of life.

483
01:02:54,980 --> 01:02:57,530
And the reason I think this has faded.

484
01:02:57,530 --> 01:03:09,980
At least it's not explicitly invoked any longer is because it's very widely accepted now that we live in a multi faith,

485
01:03:09,980 --> 01:03:24,530
multi-ethnic, pluralistic society. And it's very difficult to find a non-religious, non-sectarian justification for the sanctity of life.

486
01:03:24,530 --> 01:03:30,620
It's almost all the idea that human life is sacrosanct and must never be violated.

487
01:03:30,620 --> 01:03:37,490
Is is just very different. It's very difficult to find a basis for that other than a religious basis.

488
01:03:37,490 --> 01:03:45,470
And I think that's the reason why it's not being explicitly invoked of respect for life is being invoked.

489
01:03:45,470 --> 01:03:49,610
And indeed, going back to the Carter case.

490
01:03:49,610 --> 01:04:00,790
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its unanimous decision in favour of made invoked respect for life.

491
01:04:00,790 --> 01:04:08,860
That's Article seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our right to life, liberty and security of the person.

492
01:04:08,860 --> 01:04:14,140
So they invoked respect for life in justifying assisted death.

493
01:04:14,140 --> 01:04:22,660
And the argument was that absent the legalisation of of assistance in death,

494
01:04:22,660 --> 01:04:27,700
patients would have to kill themselves and they might have to do so prematurely.

495
01:04:27,700 --> 01:04:36,670
And indeed, we've we've had cases in Canada of patients who've tried to bring themselves under the made legislation

496
01:04:36,670 --> 01:04:42,490
will either been ruled not eligible because they were their death wasn't reasonably foreseeable.

497
01:04:42,490 --> 01:04:46,870
So they started themselves to death or in one or two cases,

498
01:04:46,870 --> 01:04:54,130
they've starved themselves to the point where their death was reasonably foreseeable and then they were eligible for mate.

499
01:04:54,130 --> 01:05:04,150
Now, that seems that kind of the legislation has this cruel implication and that the federal government,

500
01:05:04,150 --> 01:05:08,890
in the short case that I mentioned earlier to Sean.

501
01:05:08,890 --> 01:05:16,150
Glad you were justice will do it throughout the reasonable foreseeability, cause the government of Canada said, well, hey,

502
01:05:16,150 --> 01:05:28,290
if you said to John to ship to shore and Nicole, glad to see the government said, well, you can take your own lives.

503
01:05:28,290 --> 01:05:40,290
Or you can stop eating and drinking and be the judge in that case was really offended by the guy.

504
01:05:40,290 --> 01:05:48,750
These don't seem like adequate alternatives. Now, Doug, there was a second part to that question that I haven't addressed yet,

505
01:05:48,750 --> 01:05:56,190
and I'm not sure I understood it is is sanctity of life being smuggled in and how?

506
01:05:56,190 --> 01:06:00,620
Well, I'm not sure. I'm sorry.

507
01:06:00,620 --> 01:06:04,680
I don't. I've been I've been skipping porn and reading from the other questions to try and fill up.

508
01:06:04,680 --> 01:06:09,180
The next one will be is I'm not dividing my attention. OK, so great.

509
01:06:09,180 --> 01:06:14,950
Put that put that one aside. Let's go on to the next question.

510
01:06:14,950 --> 01:06:23,380
Here is a straightforward question, not a straightforward answer, probably, but I think it gives us an interesting other area.

511
01:06:23,380 --> 01:06:30,680
How is intolerable suffering being defined?

512
01:06:30,680 --> 01:06:44,840
So, yes. So the legislation under Bill C14 used a number of phrases that were ambiguous and vague.

513
01:06:44,840 --> 01:06:53,030
I've already talked about reasonable foreseeability. Irremediable is another.

514
01:06:53,030 --> 01:06:57,500
The debt is the disease. The medical condition has to be irremediable.

515
01:06:57,500 --> 01:07:09,500
But what does that mean? So, for example, if a if a patient with cancer who's tried several oncology drugs refuses to try yet another one.

516
01:07:09,500 --> 01:07:14,540
Could you say will you? Therefore, we can't say it's your remediable because you're not.

517
01:07:14,540 --> 01:07:19,070
Or if a patient declines. What could potentially be a lifesaving surgery?

518
01:07:19,070 --> 01:07:24,710
So what the government made clear and what the Supreme Court earlier made clear in the Carter case was

519
01:07:24,710 --> 01:07:34,720
that irremediable means are not able to be cured by a treatment which is acceptable to the patient.

520
01:07:34,720 --> 01:07:41,350
And a similar interpretation has been given to intolerable suffering.

521
01:07:41,350 --> 01:07:50,820
It has to be suffering that is intolerable to the patient.

522
01:07:50,820 --> 01:08:00,270
OK. So is he happy to kind of let me just say I want to say one other word.

523
01:08:00,270 --> 01:08:08,140
In order to be eligible under the new draught legislation that hasn't passed yet in Canada.

524
01:08:08,140 --> 01:08:13,390
You have to be eligible, you have to be suffering in intolerably.

525
01:08:13,390 --> 01:08:20,010
Now, if intolerably means literally, you can't tolerate it.

526
01:08:20,010 --> 01:08:27,630
Then no one would I mean, then you'd have that, then your choices would be stupefy yourself with drugs.

527
01:08:27,630 --> 01:08:33,690
So something like terminal sedation, in which case you wouldn't be eligible for mate because you wouldn't be.

528
01:08:33,690 --> 01:08:44,250
You'd no longer be competent. So intolerable has been interpreted as meaning severe rather than literally an entire right.

529
01:08:44,250 --> 01:08:47,760
I mean, also, if you say Atlantics to what the patient experiences,

530
01:08:47,760 --> 01:08:57,170
you could get these weird situations where the patient claims that's intolerable, but it just doesn't seem like there's anything going on at all.

531
01:08:57,170 --> 01:09:03,830
And I'm. I guess the case is we might get close to that as well, though not exactly.

532
01:09:03,830 --> 01:09:08,890
That is where you have very serious, intractable depression.

533
01:09:08,890 --> 01:09:13,880
Course you can believe that there is suffering going on in those cases. So they know it's not totally weird.

534
01:09:13,880 --> 01:09:24,230
But I'm assuming that's part of what was behind the idea of having those 90 days.

535
01:09:24,230 --> 01:09:29,310
You kind of want to think he misses what I was wondering, are they. Would they ask for 90 days?

536
01:09:29,310 --> 01:09:35,720
Is it something to do with wondering if it maybe might just get better or maybe it will go away or something?

537
01:09:35,720 --> 01:09:45,300
Is that the idea? Yeah. Good question. So let me just reiterate, I think the new draught legislation explicit.

538
01:09:45,300 --> 01:09:49,890
Schnozz, who's suffering results from mental illness.

539
01:09:49,890 --> 01:09:59,070
So if you're suffering as a result of depression or bipolar disorder or whatever it might be, you wouldn't be eligible.

540
01:09:59,070 --> 01:10:04,530
You just ruled out. If so, who is the gun?

541
01:10:04,530 --> 01:10:07,830
So who is the government trying to protect with the 90 days?

542
01:10:07,830 --> 01:10:14,490
Who are the vulnerable patients who are suffering intolerably but will be forced to wait almost

543
01:10:14,490 --> 01:10:24,930
three months before they can be released so that the categories of patients would be the following?

544
01:10:24,930 --> 01:10:29,000
You've had a crippling accident.

545
01:10:29,000 --> 01:10:41,180
And haven't had much time to adjust or a sudden onset of disease, which is very disabling and perhaps involves a lot of suffering.

546
01:10:41,180 --> 01:10:52,330
So the government wants to make sure that no one. The government wants to make sure that everyone has a chance to adjust to their what

547
01:10:52,330 --> 01:11:00,710
could be new life circumstances and that that the suffering has to be enduring.

548
01:11:00,710 --> 01:11:08,630
That was part of the original legislation, but the government originally introduced a 10 day waiting period,

549
01:11:08,630 --> 01:11:12,560
but it had initially a reasonably foreseeable death clause.

550
01:11:12,560 --> 01:11:19,300
So if you're if you're already dying. We'll make you wait 10 more days.

551
01:11:19,300 --> 01:11:27,800
Now that you don't have to be dying. They're saying you have to wait 90 days in order to be eligible.

552
01:11:27,800 --> 01:11:34,700
Also, I think the government assumed that mental illness is the sole underlying disorder is the exclusive underlying medical condition would

553
01:11:34,700 --> 01:11:41,690
be ruled out by the death reasonably foreseeable because there aren't many medical conditions where death is reasonably foreseeable.

554
01:11:41,690 --> 01:11:46,820
There are a few, I suppose anorexia nervosa might be might be one.

555
01:11:46,820 --> 01:11:54,980
So they're thinking of of an accident victim or the sudden onset of a disease or dramatic change in a person's circumstances,

556
01:11:54,980 --> 01:12:09,020
which involves intense suffering, which they are finding unendurable, but which over time they might they might adjust to they might find acceptable.

557
01:12:09,020 --> 01:12:14,510
That, I think, is the category of vulnerable patients. They have in mind.

558
01:12:14,510 --> 01:12:18,570
Sorry, I forgot about the condition that doesn't apply to mental illness.

559
01:12:18,570 --> 01:12:25,520
It just kind of counterintuitive, but thank you. Here's one on the slippery slope.

560
01:12:25,520 --> 01:12:33,900
So about your point on slippery slope arguments. You said we need empirical evidence for whether the slope is slippery or not.

561
01:12:33,900 --> 01:12:42,640
But one might reply that once we have the evidence that there is a slippery slope, then it's too late because we're already down slope.

562
01:12:42,640 --> 01:12:50,470
So they might say that a reasonable risk of a slippery slope is enough to add restrictions.

563
01:12:50,470 --> 01:12:54,210
So what do you think about that?

564
01:12:54,210 --> 01:13:07,070
Well, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that the government can infringe your liberty or your other guaranteed charter rights.

565
01:13:07,070 --> 01:13:15,110
But only if it's reasonably done what demonstrable or demonstrably reasonable in a free and democratic society.

566
01:13:15,110 --> 01:13:21,960
So the burden of proof. If the government's proposing to limit your liberty.

567
01:13:21,960 --> 01:13:30,370
The burden of proof is on the government. Now, I understand this question is asymptote so high, how high should the burden be?

568
01:13:30,370 --> 01:13:38,380
How much evidence should they be? And I don't think they would be required to provide a level approaching certainty,

569
01:13:38,380 --> 01:13:48,850
but they'd have to have good evidence that that vulnerable people were being abused, exploited or or harmed.

570
01:13:48,850 --> 01:13:55,870
Keep in mind and the point I'm going to make now was made many years ago by Mary Warnock, British philosopher.

571
01:13:55,870 --> 01:13:59,320
Some of you will have will know we'll have no,

572
01:13:59,320 --> 01:14:09,250
she said it's not just it's not enough just to look at the harm that may come to of vulnerable patients or vulnerable people.

573
01:14:09,250 --> 01:14:10,360
You've got to look.

574
01:14:10,360 --> 01:14:20,140
You've also got to look at the harm that may come to those who are suffering intensely dying or not dying if it's a chronic degenerative

575
01:14:20,140 --> 01:14:32,320
disease and tour it into the experiencing intolerable pain and whose desire or need to die with dignity will be sacrificed.

576
01:14:32,320 --> 01:14:36,130
So you've got potential harms on both sides.

577
01:14:36,130 --> 01:14:46,510
We know for certain that that there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of dying patients in Canada whose deaths are very ugly indeed.

578
01:14:46,510 --> 01:14:53,430
And not at all what they would have wanted. As Gloria Taylor said, I want my in the Khadr case.

579
01:14:53,430 --> 01:15:01,300
She was one of the plaintiffs. She said, I want my death to be to reflect the values by which I live.

580
01:15:01,300 --> 01:15:06,100
I want to die with dignity. I want to die on my terms.

581
01:15:06,100 --> 01:15:14,140
So if you offer if you think that there it will be or maybe some harm to vulnerable patients.

582
01:15:14,140 --> 01:15:20,920
And if you've got some evidence that there may be patients who will wrongfully die.

583
01:15:20,920 --> 01:15:28,290
Because you've legalised rape, that's nevertheless the proportionality test.

584
01:15:28,290 --> 01:15:35,850
Consequentialism, where utilitarianism says that that harm, even if you had some evidence that there would be such harms,

585
01:15:35,850 --> 01:15:45,570
has to be weighed against the harm that would be caused if you don't permit people to have certain options at the end of their lives.

586
01:15:45,570 --> 01:15:49,120
And there has to be if you're going to prohibit.

587
01:15:49,120 --> 01:15:55,690
People's exercising their their freedom of choice in the menu of options available at the end of life.

588
01:15:55,690 --> 01:16:00,340
You've got to have good evidence. How good? It's a matter of judgement.

589
01:16:00,340 --> 01:16:06,340
It's a matter of balance. Yes, sir.

590
01:16:06,340 --> 01:16:12,310
So back to another one about professional attitudes to euthanasia.

591
01:16:12,310 --> 01:16:13,360
So in the UK,

592
01:16:13,360 --> 01:16:22,160
progress on physician assisted dying has been blocked by conservative professional organisations such as the British Medical Association.

593
01:16:22,160 --> 01:16:27,770
Has that been true in Canada? Also, do you think it's common in other countries generally?

594
01:16:27,770 --> 01:16:36,430
And if so, why is this happening? Given what you've said about the opinions of individual doctors?

595
01:16:36,430 --> 01:16:41,500
Yes. Well. Isn't it the case?

596
01:16:41,500 --> 01:16:43,690
You'll have to tell me if this is true, dog,

597
01:16:43,690 --> 01:16:52,430
that that the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Britain recently changed its position from being opposed to being neutral.

598
01:16:52,430 --> 01:16:56,920
I wish I could tell you that. I'm afraid I don't have the answer from I.

599
01:16:56,920 --> 01:17:12,540
I think initially colleges of physicians and surgeons and other professional medical bodies were very wary of of medical medically assisted death.

600
01:17:12,540 --> 01:17:16,810
I'll just interrupt you there. Professor Tom Wilkinsons just jumped in to say that.

601
01:17:16,810 --> 01:17:22,090
Yes, you're correct on that. I can hear you now.

602
01:17:22,090 --> 01:17:34,480
So I think medical opinion can and does shift when public opinion shifts to doctors who are ordinary folks as well.

603
01:17:34,480 --> 01:17:41,020
Their views also shift. And in Canada, medical opinion is now very strongly in favour.

604
01:17:41,020 --> 01:17:50,330
It usually lags behind. And I think it likes behind because doctors.

605
01:17:50,330 --> 01:17:52,380
Fear. Fear being involved.

606
01:17:52,380 --> 01:18:02,810
I mean, I'll be the one who has to give the lethal injection or who has to handle the lethal pill to the patient to to swallow.

607
01:18:02,810 --> 01:18:07,550
And there's a there's a feeling that I'll be killing my patient.

608
01:18:07,550 --> 01:18:14,750
All I would say is that that's the sentiment that I very widely heard from physicians 48 years ago.

609
01:18:14,750 --> 01:18:19,370
And I began working at a hospital and working at a medical school.

610
01:18:19,370 --> 01:18:24,020
With respect to a patients asking for the plug to be pulled.

611
01:18:24,020 --> 01:18:31,280
The doctor said, but I'll be killing the patient. I can't do that. The Hippocratic Oath says I will not administer poison.

612
01:18:31,280 --> 01:18:37,520
Although there's a lot of controversy about what that really meant at the time for partridges.

613
01:18:37,520 --> 01:18:44,100
So traditional physician ethics has regarded death as a defeat.

614
01:18:44,100 --> 01:18:49,680
I think modern physician ethics is coming to recognise that putting the best interests

615
01:18:49,680 --> 01:18:55,980
of your patient first doesn't necessarily mean prolonging your patient's life.

616
01:18:55,980 --> 01:19:00,510
After that, life has become in the patients sides more burdensome than beneficial.

617
01:19:00,510 --> 01:19:08,520
And I think the the development of palliative care is an important speciality in medicine, has helped to change attitudes,

618
01:19:08,520 --> 01:19:13,590
though not necessarily the attitudes of palliative care physicians or not as rapidly as some others.

619
01:19:13,590 --> 01:19:20,640
But the I the idea that the doctor is devoted to life, to life, to prolonging life as the primary goal,

620
01:19:20,640 --> 01:19:25,990
maybe as the sole goal that used to be much more common then than it is now.

621
01:19:25,990 --> 01:19:32,190
I, I think persuading the medical profession in England may be like.

622
01:19:32,190 --> 01:19:41,030
Pushing a door that's already mostly or party opened, I think doctors are much more respectful today than they were 50 years ago.

623
01:19:41,030 --> 01:19:49,110
A patient autonomy rights, the patient's right to decide from a menu of treatment options.

624
01:19:49,110 --> 01:19:54,570
Your obligation as a physician to inform the patient what the options are and if

625
01:19:54,570 --> 01:20:00,600
the patient's right to decide and if the patient decides not to prolong life,

626
01:20:00,600 --> 01:20:07,860
it's your obligation to provide an easeful death, the kind of death that the patient would want.

627
01:20:07,860 --> 01:20:18,420
Now, some patients will value suffering at the end of life. Perhaps some Christian patients, a place of big value on on suffering at the end of life.

628
01:20:18,420 --> 01:20:22,990
That's their choice. Thank you, just so, Don.

629
01:20:22,990 --> 01:20:29,470
Don, this is the BMA is still thinking they're officially opposed, but they've recently surveyed their members.

630
01:20:29,470 --> 01:20:36,640
So things might be shifting their time from one or two more.

631
01:20:36,640 --> 01:20:43,830
So not one here. So what cases to the maid committees turned down in general?

632
01:20:43,830 --> 01:20:49,830
Yeah, that's such a good question. And the evidence is very fragmentary.

633
01:20:49,830 --> 01:20:59,850
There have to be reports, but we don't have a national body collating all the reports and analysing them.

634
01:20:59,850 --> 01:21:03,900
The prime reason for the prime reasons,

635
01:21:03,900 --> 01:21:15,370
the two criteria that seemed most frequently when applied to have resulted in a negative decision are, first of all, competence.

636
01:21:15,370 --> 01:21:30,370
So you can imagine that the population applying for made is often frail, elderly, dying, sedated and so competent may well be in question, by the way.

637
01:21:30,370 --> 01:21:36,370
Same, the same. Difficulty in assessing competence.

638
01:21:36,370 --> 01:21:42,200
Prevails when it comes to living wills and advance directive.

639
01:21:42,200 --> 01:21:46,990
Right. Were they are they competent? Is this really what they want?

640
01:21:46,990 --> 01:21:50,170
Were they adequately informed? So competence is one.

641
01:21:50,170 --> 01:21:59,310
Does the patient to have the capacity and patients who may have a lethal disease, but also a mental illness,

642
01:21:59,310 --> 01:22:04,300
it may be questionable whether they whether they're whether they have adequate capacity.

643
01:22:04,300 --> 01:22:11,080
So that's one has been one of the main reasons for as far as I can tell, from preliminary data.

644
01:22:11,080 --> 01:22:15,670
And the second has been the reasonable foreseeability cost.

645
01:22:15,670 --> 01:22:20,260
It's interpreted very differently. So we have the A.

646
01:22:20,260 --> 01:22:30,260
B case that I mentioned in 2017 in Ontario, where a patient with osteoarthritis was said to satisfy their reasonable foreseeability.

647
01:22:30,260 --> 01:22:36,140
A natural death is reasonably foreseeable because they were 77 years old.

648
01:22:36,140 --> 01:22:40,690
There've been so many different ways of interpreting.

649
01:22:40,690 --> 01:22:48,940
Some patients with a last saw who've been diagnosed with a lesser diagnosed with Huntington's disease,

650
01:22:48,940 --> 01:22:52,630
their deaths may be years away or Alzheimer's disease.

651
01:22:52,630 --> 01:22:57,400
And yet their death. What they've got is a lethal disease.

652
01:22:57,400 --> 01:23:04,300
So does that count? And some physicians and some made committees in some provinces have been very conservative.

653
01:23:04,300 --> 01:23:10,630
They're worried that the teeth of the law may bite into their rear end if they provide a mate

654
01:23:10,630 --> 01:23:17,590
certificate or if they provide if they administer made to a patient who wasn't imminently died.

655
01:23:17,590 --> 01:23:26,080
Everyone feels confident about the patient with metastatic cancer, who has a very short time to live and suffering intolerable.

656
01:23:26,080 --> 01:23:32,721
Not everyone feels confident about patients with chronic degenerative diseases.