What is Canada's biggest challenge in revising its medical assistance in dying legislation? Getting the proper balance between the right to autonomy and the right to live with dignity and respect. Both are protected by human rights legislation.
As a society, we don't have difficulty understanding why liberty is important. Those who support the
Vulnerable Persons Standard contend that the right to life on an equal basis with others is also imperative, though perhaps less instinctive.
VPS advisor Dr. Michael Bach explained that the end of life criterion is an intentional rights-balancing tool in
The Star
:
"The Criminal Code provisions...adopted by Parliament in 2016 aimed to achieve the balance needed to fully recognize human rights in a system for assisted death ... It achieves balance and helps to fulfil [the legislative objective of promoting equality and preventing stigma] by authorizing access only to those who are at the end of life.
Why does the equal right to live with dignity and respect so often get overlooked?
The World Health Organization
warns that socially normalized forms of prejudice like ageism and ableism are more difficult to recognize than racism, sexism, or homophobia.
"The Quebec Superior Court did not discuss ableism, ageism, "disease-ism" or socio-economic vulnerability in relation to MAiD - factors that provide the context for what it's like to live with a disability in our society. In fact, the Quebec court stated... that belonging to a group that has historically suffered from denigration or marginalization is irrelevant to the rights to life, security, and liberty"
Professor Beaudry argues that by ignoring the impact of oppression in the provision of MAID, "our courts and legislators fail to properly protect...vulnerable persons".
We all know what it feels like to have our liberty threatened, but we may not all know what it feels like for our lives to be subtly devalued. Unless being devalued is a routine experience, as it is for many disabled, racialized, stigmatized or marginalized Canadians, these threats to equality pass under the radar. That's why our highest courts must consider what it means to have equal protection and equal benefit from the law.
Forced by the deadlines imposed in a lower court decision, parliamentarians must now work very intentionally to maintain a delicate balance of fundamental rights.
