Article content continued

There have been warning signs.

When Archie Rolland requested and received a medically assisted death in Québec in 2016, he made it clear that it was not his illness, but rather the distress and deprivations of inadequate care that had made his life intolerable.

More recently in Ontario, Roger Foley has reported that although his claims for disability support arrangements of his choosing have been denied, he is free to pursue a medically assisted death. Assisted life, no. Assisted death, yes.

Are these isolated cases? Or are they the tip of the iceberg? Genuine, comprehensive monitoring could help us know. But it’s not in place.

Nor will it be, under the new regulations. The “Impact Assessment” report appended to the new regulations make clear that the government’s expectation is that “approximately 10 minutes are required to electronically file each report submitted by a practitioner familiar with the reporting requirements” for MAID.

Because medically assisted dying is, in fact, a narrow exemption to the criminal prohibition of homicide, and represents a departure from the Hippocratic oath by which physicians are bound, assessing its impacts must be infinitely more thorough than an electronic form where boxes are checked and cases are reported in 10 minutes or less.

MAID monitoring must be far more than an administrative exercise.

The act of ending the life of another human being raises fundamental questions of human dignity and rights. How will the most vulnerable members of our community be protected from the ultimate harm? How will persons with authority and power be held accountable? How will the kindly but insidious forces of inducement to MAID be kept in check?