This article was originally published on聽, which features includes relevant and informed articles, written by researchers and academics in their areas of expertise and edited by experienced journalists.
is University Research Professor in the Schulich School of Law and the Faculty of Medicine at Dalhousie. is Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa.
More than 2,000 people have since received royal assent on June 17, 2016.
This legislation has, however, come under sustained criticism for its ambiguity. When it was first introduced, concerns were immediately expressed about the eligibility criterion that 鈥渘atural death has become reasonably foreseeable.鈥�
This phrase 鈥渞easonably foreseeable鈥� was deemed by many to be . It has led to confusion and a variety of interpretations among providers and assessors of medical assistance in dying (MAiD).
Now the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons has . This will remove a barrier to access to MAiD for some seriously ill patients in the province 鈥� such as, for example, a dialysis-dependent patient who decides to stop dialysis.
As researchers who have engaged with clinicians, lawyers and philosophers on the meaning and implementation of the legislation, we think this statement is a much-needed contribution to the care of individuals with grievous and irremediable conditions causing intolerable suffering.
We hope that the other provincial and territorial regulators of physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists will soon follow Nova Scotia鈥檚 lead. Suffering individuals across Canada should not be blocked from accessing MAiD just because of confusion about the meaning of the legislation.
鈥榃e will all die鈥�
The definition of a 鈥渞easonably foreseeable鈥� death has perplexed many patients, doctors and nurse practitioners.
鈥溾�楻easonably foreseeable鈥� does not have a medical meaning because ,鈥� cautioned Monica Branigan, chair of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, as she testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The requirement, 鈥�,鈥� said Catherine Ferrier, President of the Physicians鈥� Alliance Against Euthanasia.
Not surprisingly, as the legislation has been implemented in Canada since June 2016, there has been considerable variability in the interpretation of 鈥渞easonably foreseeable鈥� by doctors and nurse practitioners.
Some appear to have interpreted it to mean 鈥渄eath expected within 12 months鈥� or in the 鈥渘ear future.鈥� Some have interpreted it to mean 鈥渁nticipated survival of as much as 10 years.鈥� Others have decided it does not require a prognosis as to any specific length of time.
Leadership from Nova Scotia
Fortunately, we are beginning to see leadership from the very groups who first sounded the alarm about the vagueness of this eligibility criterion 鈥� colleges of physicians and surgeons.
On Feb. 8, 2018, the Executive Committee of the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons approved the following text for their :
鈥淭he only court decision to date addressing 鈥榬easonably foreseeable鈥� states that: natural death need not be imminent and that what is a reasonably foreseeable death is a person鈥恠pecific medical question to be made without necessarily making, but not necessarily precluding, a prognosis of the remaining lifespan. In formulating an opinion, the physician need not opine about the specific length of time that the person requesting medical assistance in dying has remaining in his or her lifetime. (AB v. Canada 2017 ONSC 3759, para 79鈥�80) Therefore, natural death will be reasonably foreseeable if a medical or nurse practitioner is of the opinion that a patient鈥檚 natural death will be sufficiently soon or that the patient鈥檚 cause of natural death has become predictable.鈥�
The clear implication of this is that the MAiD provider and assessor need not form an opinion as to the anticipated survival time, when the cause of death can be predicted.
In other words, they must be able to predict either the when or the how of death 鈥� but do not have to be able to predict both.
Serving the public interest
According to this professional standard, a patient鈥檚 natural death could have become reasonably foreseeable 20 years from death 鈥� for example, when a patient has a diagnosis of Huntington鈥檚 disease.
Obviously, they will not meet all the eligibility criteria for MAiD on the day of diagnosis. For example, their decline in capability will not yet be advanced and their suffering not yet enduring and intolerable. But they will have an incurable condition and their natural death will have become reasonably foreseeable.
This also means that a patient鈥檚 natural death could become reasonably foreseeable when potentially life-saving interventions are declined.
For example, when a paraplegic patient decides to refuse the skin care and changing of positions required to prevent bedsores and then antibiotics to treat the infections that will inevitably result. Or when a patient with multiple sclerosis refuses food and liquids.
For each of these people, the cause of natural death has become predictable.
With its recent statement, the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons has made a significant contribution to the clarification of 鈥渞easonably foreseeable鈥� (at least within the province).
In doing so, they are modelling the statutory mandate of regulators of health professionals to 鈥渟erve and protect the public interest.鈥�
Read the聽聽at The Conversation Canada.
黑料吃瓜网 is a founding partner of The Conversation Canada, a new-to-Canada online media outlet providing independent, high-quality explanatory journalism. Originally established in Australia in 2011, it has had more than 85 commissioning editors and 30,000-plus academics register as contributors. A full list of articles written by 黑料吃瓜网academics can be found on聽.