Alberta’s Bill 18 in light of assurances to Supreme Court of Canada
News Release
For immediate release
Protection of Conscience Project
Introduced on 18 March in the provincial legislature, the Alberta Government’s Bill 18, the Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life Act, will provide the framework for Alberta’s provision of euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS: known in Canada as “Medical Assistance in Dying”/MAiD).
The bill makes no reference to conscience. Nonetheless, it appears to offer substantial protection for health care practitioners and health care facilities by formally recognizing their freedom to refuse to collaborate in killing patients or helping patients kill themselves.
“In this respect, Bill 18 seems to deliver on assurances given to the Supreme Court of Canada by the late Joseph Arvay,” said Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project.
Joseph Arvay led the constitutional challenge that ended the absolute prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.
“The title of Bill 18 reflects what Mr. Arvay told the Supreme Court of Canada,” explained Murphy. “He believed that physicians were ideal euthanasia practitioners because, in his words, ‘[I]t is an irrefutable truth that all doctors believe it is their professional and ethical duty to do no harm.’”
Which means, in almost every case, that they will want to help their patients live, not die. It is for the very reason that we advocate only physician assisted dying and not any kind of assisted dying because we know physicians will be reluctant gatekeepers, and only agree to it as a last resort.1
“Mr. Arvay assured the Supreme Court of Canada that physicians would only agree to euthanasia as a ‘last resort,’” said Murphy. “So far, Alberta’s government seems to be the only one in Canada willing to make that a reality.”
“That is important not only for practitioners who object to euthanasia and assisted suicide in principle, but for EAS practitioners who may be unwilling to collaborate in the procedures in particular cases,” he added. “And, if we accept Mr. Arvay’s reasoning, it is equally important for the protection of patients.”
The Protection of Conscience Project does not take a position on the acceptability of morally/ethically contested services like EAS. It is reviewing the text of Bill 18 with a view to making a submission to the Alberta government.
Contact:
Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project
protection@consciencelaws.org
Notes:
- Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 SCR 331 (Oral argument, Appellant), Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), “Webcast of the Hearing on 2014-10-15” (22 January, 2018) at 00:20:03 to 00:20:40. ↩︎