One Canadian Province is Combating Canada’s Euthanasia Agenda

Canada has gone hog wild for euthanasia. But the pro-death tide may — may — be beginning to turn. The province of Alberta just passed a bill that significantly restricts eligibility for euthanasia (medical aid in dying, or MAID), soon to be signed into binding law.

The biggest change in Bill 18 ends the eligibility of non-terminally-ill patients to be MAIDed (known as Track 2). Among the provisions of Bill 18 (“Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act”), as summarized by the government:

Eligibility in Alberta to individuals 18 and over with capacity to make their own health care decisions whose natural death has been determined by a physician or nurse practitioner as being reasonably foreseeable, also known as Track 1 MAID, meaning that it is likely to happen within 12 months.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

That’s still as loose as loose can be. Doctors can’t predict the time of death that precisely so far out but rely on probability statistics that do not reflect the patient’s unique circumstances.

But a take-back is a take-back. Going forward, the non–terminally ill, people with disabilities, and others who do not have a terminal prognosis will no longer be eligible to be euthanized. That could save some lives.

The new law makes it very clear that MAID is prohibited for “individuals under 18 years old; for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness; for advance requests; and for individuals without the capacity to make their own health-care decisions.”

And no more propagandizing for euthanasia in hospitals and other medical facilities, as the law “restrict[s] the public display of MAID information, such as posters, within health-care facilities.”

Moreover, the bill provides real conscience protections for doctors, hospices, and other medical facilities that do not wish to participate in the killing of patients. “Under the provincial MAID legislation physicians and nurse practitioners have the right to refuse to conduct MAID assessments or provide MAID in Alberta.” Also, “certain types of health-care facilities have a right to refuse to allow MAID assessment or provision on their premises. This includes allowing these facilities to create an ‘exclusion zone’ of 150 metres around their premises in which MAID services would not be permitted.”

The new law does require that the patient be told where more information on being made dead can be found. But it does not require an “effective referral,” that is, to a doctor known to be willing to kill.

A total ban on euthanasia would of course be preferable. But this bill is for the better and probably represents all that can be done politically at this time. Good for Alberta.

Now for a dose of pessimism. I am not sure what the federal government will or can do, but I don’t expect it to do nothing. I doubt whether this law will pass legal muster under the Canadian Supreme Court’s radical ruling that led to this mess in the first place. From the 2015 Carter v. Canada decision (my emphasis):

Criminal laws against assisted suicide] unjustifiably infringes s-7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition.

Notice, the court said nothing about a terminal-illness requirement but included people with disabilities, chronic conditions, or an “illness,” which could include those with mental illnesses.

Indeed, the ruling was even broader than those words suggest. For example, a treatable condition can qualify as “irremediable” if the patient chooses not to pursue available medical remedies. “‘Irremediable,’ it should be added, does not require the patient to undertake treatments that are not acceptable to the individual.”

In other words, an “irremediable” condition that permits life-termination may actually be wholly remediable, except that the patient would rather die than receive care.

Still, let’s be of good cheer. This is the first time that I can recall any jurisdiction passing a significant statutory pullback from assisted suicide or euthanasia after it became legal. In itself, that is worth celebrating.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.