Voices against C-14

“The federal government casts a wide net in its list of lives that are not worth living, including people with a serious and incurable disease, condition or disability, those losing autonomy and those with persistent physical or psychological suffering

Aubert Martin of Living with Dignity and Catherine Ferrier of Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia

“How dare we ask our doctors and nurses to put patients to death when a safer option exists. Healthcare providers must never assume the role of killers or refer to another who will provide the “death management.” Trust and legal issues will make more problems for our sick and elderly.”

Jean Echlin, nurse consultant for 36 years in palliative care & gerontology in southwestern Ontario

“With the introduction of Bill C-14, Canada has crossed a significant threshold. The decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide constitutes a fundamental shift in how we as a society value and understand life and the duty of care we owe one another. Never before have we as a nation said that intentional killing is an appropriate response to suffering, or that we should take the life of the one who suffers rather than finding ways to alleviate their suffering.”

Bruce Clemenger, President of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

“The bill provides no protection for conscientious objectors. In fact it compels them to be part of the chain of events leading up to a person’s death. Absent explicit protections for health practitioners’ conscience rights, the bill violates their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to freedom of conscience.”

Albertos Polizogopoulos, a constitutional lawyer who represents Canadian Physicians for Life

“By legalizing assisted suicide, the message that Parliament will send out to Canadians, especially young Canadians, is that suicide can be a lawful solution to your suffering.”

Mary Ellen Douglas, Campaign Life Coalition national organizer

“The minister tells us correctly that the court left the task of defining certain terms to Parliament. Therefore, it is regrettable that the key term ‘reasonably foreseeable death’ in this legislation is not defined. This is problematic, because in her speech, in which she expresses the intent of the government on the subject, she is ambiguous as to what the meaning could be. She said that it is not necessary to be “terminally ill”. Therefore, “reasonably foreseeable” does not mean that we have a projected end date to that person’s life, unless she has some definition of terminally ill that is different from the one normally used. On the other hand, she said that we do not promote premature death. Again, these two are directly in contradiction, unless she has some definition for the term premature death that has not yet been shared with us.”

Conservative MP Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston) to Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould in the House of Commons

“The combination of woolly ‘safeguards’ and no system of advance legal review means that doctors will be expected to make complex legal decisions in an unclear legal environment, and patients will be able to ‘doctor shop’ for those with the most permissive approaches.”