two independent health care professionals need to evaluate an individual in order to determine whether he/she qualifies for MAID. To qualify, an individual must be 18 years or older and meet the following four eligibility criteria: 1. Have a serious and incurable disease, illness or disability 2. Be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability 3. Endure physical and psychological suffering that is intolerable to them; and 4. Their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable The important difference is that the law set for in Bill C-14 places a narrower set of conditions on who may permissibly be given assistance in dying. Bill C14 took the court’s guidance in (3)-‘has a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering…’ and placed the more restrictive condition that ‘their natural death has become reasonable foreseeable.’ The bill adds an ‘end of life condition.’ The eminent Canadian constitutional law scholar Perter Hogg - whose work on Canadian constitutional law has itself been cited dozens of times by the Canadian supreme court- made a presentation to the senate in the wake of the bill’s vote in Parliament: “If Bill C-14 were enacted in its present form, the class of entitles persons would no longer include people whose suffering is not an end-of-life condition. It is incredible to me that the court in carter, when it called for legislation by Parliament ‘consistent with the constitutional parameter set out in these reasons was envisaging legislation to narrow the class by taking away a right that had just been deliberately granted by the supreme court seems to me inconsistent with the constitutional parameters set out in the court’s reasons.” In her presentation to the Senate, Dalhousie’s own Jocelyn Downie wrote a withering critique of the Bill C-14, pointing out, among other things, that Kay Carter (of Carter v. Canada) would not met Bill C14’s requirement of the ‘end of life’. Downie wrote: “there is no indication in the decision that the supreme court of Canada thought that Kay Carter’s ‘natural death’ has become “reasonably foreseeable” in any temporally proximate way. The fact, just the opposite” in Peter Hogg’s presentation to the senate, he said ‘it can safely be predicted that a member of the newly excluded class-those who satisfy the Carter criteria but do not have an end of life condition- will bring a constitutional challenge to the new legislation
Hogg was right. 10 days after the Bill C-14 passed, there was a challenge launched in BC by a woman, Julia lamb, who suffers from spinal muscular atrophy. II. ABORTION AND WRONGNESS OF KILLING To now, we have been trying, among other things, to discover some compelling story about WHY human life was so important-morally special-that euthanasia and assisted might be wrong The legal and moral arguments we examined on the section on euthanasia examined various substantive moral values of relevant to making life and death decisions at the END of life.