Price Carter, son of Lee Carter (in photo in foreground) pauses for a moment during a news conference at British Columbia Civil Liberties in Vancouver, B.C., Monday, June, 6, 2016. Price and his sister Kay Carter were speaking on the Supreme Court of Canada's death with dignity ruling. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

Those on the Right often criticize Liberals for pushing the envelope too fast on social change; “progressive” is considered such an awful epithet by the Conservatives that they dropped it from their own party’s name a decade ago.

For the Left, things can’t progress fast enough, and the NDP often accuses the Liberals of not going the distance on social issues. This, despite the fact that the Liberal party has a long-standing record of promoting minority rights, from bilingualism to same-sex couples.

Enter Bill C-14, the Liberals’ assisted suicide legislation, which would extend the right to a doctor-assisted death to a heretofore neglected minority — people who are grievously ill and wish to end their lives. In this case, the government is being attacked from all directions, regardless of party affiliation.

Conservative MP Ted Falk proposed that the right be limited to those expected to die within 30 days. Conservative Senator Linda Frum spoke in favour of a Senate amendment which would make suffering — not foreseeable death — the basis on which a person could request doctor-assisted suicide. Liberal Senator Terry Mercer voiced concerns about the bill’s potential to encourage suicide in populations which already struggle with suicide, such as First Nations youth. NDP MP Murray Rankin cited constitutional expert Peter Hogg’s “game-changer” opinion that the new law would fail a Charter of Rights test by failing to respect the Supreme Court’s ruling in R. v. Carter.

The Liberals already have missed the June 6 deadline for passing the bill, set by the Court. Assisted death is now a legal no-man’s land. While Quebec has an assisted dying law on the books, other provinces are scrambling to enact legislation and guidelines in the absence of a federal law. Health Minister Jane Philpott said this week that “while I have faith in Canada’s healthcare providers to carry out these responsibilities responsibly and ethically, I believe that regulatory guidance alone is insufficient, given the nature of what you will be asked to do. We will have a patchwork approach to protection of the vulnerable, as safeguards vary across the country.”

We’ve see this movie before, on another contentious moral and social issue: abortion. In 1988, the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion law in R. v. Morgentaler. Starting that year, the Progressive Conservative government of the day made two attempts to craft a new abortion law.

The first, which would have allowed access to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy while banning it in later stages, was defeated the House of Commons by a vote of 147-76. A year later, the government introduced a far more restrictive law which would have allowed abortions only in cases where a doctor held that the woman’s life and health were in danger. It passed the House by seven votes, but was defeated in a tie vote in the Senate after two high-profile deaths of women who had sought “back alley” abortions made headlines across the country. The defeat left a legislative void which has not been filled to this day.

This conversation should take time — time the government doesn’t have, unfortunately, in part because the previous government opted to ignore the issue and run out the clock. This conversationtake time — time the government doesn’t have, unfortunately, in part because the previous government opted to ignore the issue and run out the clock.

As a result, abortion is available on demand in Canada, though access to it has been a “patchwork” — just as Minister Philpott fears will be the case for assisted death. Only this year did Prince Edward Island decide to provide abortion services in its hospitals; previously, women had to travel to hospitals on the mainland to obtain the procedure. And while the most recent Ipsos poll shows a clear majority in favour of abortion on demand, in any circumstances, that was not the case in 1988 when the bill was defeated.

So it’s highly ironic that today’s Liberals, who are content with the legislative void that allows abortion on demand, are pushing back against the Senate’s threat to kill Bill C-14 and create a similar legal void on assisted death.

Both abortion and assisted suicide involve the right to control one’s own body. And just as a majority did not support abortion on demand in 1988, a majority of Canadians in 2016 do not support assisted suicide on demand. The most recent Angus Reid poll found that 78 per cent of respondents believe medically assisted death shouldn’t be available to a person struggling with severe psychological suffering but no terminal illness. On the other hand, 73 per cent of Canadians say people suffering from severe physical pain — but no terminal illness — should be allowed to end their lives.

In light of this, should the Liberals bow to the Senate’s amendment on that issue? The amendment — which would delete the clause in C-14 requiring that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable — would both reflect public opinion and conform to the Supreme Court’s decision.

But it would represent a major shift from the Liberals’ more cautious — and laudable — approach. The aim of C-14 is to allow the terminally ill to hasten a death accompanied by unbearable suffering — not simply to use death to relieve such suffering. Adopting suffering as the basis for doctor-assisted death would require more safeguards, since it would increase the demand for the procedure — not to mention the risk of abuse and the threat to vulnerable people.

Will the law eventually change to recognize suffering alone as a basis for doctor-assisted suicide? It could; the bill contemplates such a move. The legislation is reviewable after five years. During that time, it provides that “the government is committed to develop non-legislative measures that would support the improvement of a full range of options for end-of-life care, respect the personal convictions of health care providers and explore other situations … in which a person may seek access to medical assistance in dying, namely situations giving rise to requests by mature minors, advance requests and requests where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition.”

In other words, C-14 is not the last word on the subject of assisted death, but the beginning of a serious conversation on a complex moral, medical and social subject. That conversation should take time — time the government doesn’t have, unfortunately, in part because the previous government opted to ignore the issue and run out the clock.

So the Senate has the Liberals over a barrel — stuck between allowing the unelected Upper Chamber to impose its will on the elected one and opening another legislative void. A cynic would say that the Senate’s stand isn’t simply moral, but political as well — meant to show the Senate’s relevance and win it support at a time when its reputation is in tatters. Unfortunately for the government, the Senate’s position is one which respects the Supreme Court’s decision and finds majority support with the public.

It’s convenient to embrace the Senate when it does what you want, and then condemn it when it does not. But should the government stand firm on procedure, when some Canadians stand to greatly suffer, and when its law risks being tossed in the courts?

Common sense would dictate that the government accept the amendment — not because of where it comes from, but because it’s the right thing to do.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.