Abstract
Under the Act Respecting End of Life Care (ARELC) palliative care hospices may permit euthanasia under the MAD protocol on their premises, but they do not have to do so. Patients must be advised of their policy before admission. The government included another section of ARELC to provide the same exemption for La Michel Sarrazin, a private hospital. The exemptions were provided for purely pragmatic and political reasons.
The exemptions have been challenged by organizations that want hospices forced to kill patients who ask for MAD, or at least to allow physicians to come in to provide the service. Hospice representatives rejected the first demand and gave mixed responses to the second. A spokesman for the Alliance of Quebec Hospices confirmed that palliative care hospices that provide euthanasia will not be excluded from the Alliance.
A prominent hospice spokesman predicted that the pressures would increase after the passage of ARELC, and that hospices refusing to provide euthanasia would operate in an increasingly hostile climate.
A former minister of health rejected the challenges to the exemptions and insisted that the policy of hospices be respected, appealing to the principles of autonomy and freedom of choice. Consideration of freedom of conscience is irrelevant to this approach, and the description of the problem as a conflict of autonomy actually precludes a successful resolution by an appeal to the principle giving rise to it.
While the former minister of health wanted the autonomy of hospices explicitly set out in law, the only requirement in ARELC is that regional health authorities consult with institutions and palliative care hospices in their territories before making rules. Mere consultation may be insufficient to protect the integrity of hospices in the long term. [Full Text]