{"id":263537,"date":"2013-11-02T01:30:00","date_gmt":"2013-11-02T05:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/issues\/debating-euthanasia\/"},"modified":"2025-10-07T20:50:07","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T00:50:07","slug":"debating-euthanasia","status":"publish","type":"issues","link":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/","title":{"rendered":"Debating euthanasia"},"content":{"rendered":"

Legalizing killing through confusion<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Margaret Somerville
\nOctober 9, 2013<\/p>\n

My concern is that my appearance here might be perceived as my being complicit in helping you to develop Bill 52’s \u201cmanagement guidelines\u201d for euthanasia. I wish to make it clear that I totally reject legalizing euthanasia, Bill 52 and any such guidelines…<\/p>\n

It is inherently wrong to intentionally kill another person, except in justified self-defence or the defence of others whom one has a duty to protect, which requires that such killing is the only feasible option to save human life. Euthanasia does not fulfill those requirements. But, quite apart from that reason to reject it, euthanasia should remain prohibited, because legal safeguards are unlikely to be respected by healthcare professionals, as, for example, a very recently published article on the situation in Belgium clearly demonstrates. Even more importantly, legalizing euthanasia would create a risk of the abuse of some of the most vulnerable members of our society \u2014 those who are old, sick, fragile, and mentally ill or who suffer from a disability. Even if such abuse were rare in practice, augmenting the risk of it cannot be justified.<\/p>\n

Despite my rejection of Bill 52, I will now deal with some of the issues raised by it. My comments are not intended to be corrective, but, rather, flaw-finding \u2014 that is, they are made on the basis that this Bill is wrong in its essence, but even if it were not, here are some examples of what is wrong with it…<\/p>\n

Bill 52 seeks to legalize euthanasia by redefining homicide by lethal injection, which it calls \u201cmedical aid in dying\u201d (MAD), as a form of medical treatment. To do so, it uses a pro-euthanasia strategy I have called \u201clegalizing euthanasia through confusion.<\/em>\u201d This strategy involves equating euthanasia to medical interventions that are widely accepted as ethical and legal and then to confuse euthanasia with them by arguing that euthanasia is the same kind of intervention, so it too is ethical and should be legally accepted.<\/p>\n

But euthanasia differs from interventions such as refusals of treatment which result in death occurring sooner than it otherwise would or necessary pain management that could result in a shortening of life, with respect to the cause of death in the former case and in both cases the primary intention with which the intervention is carried out. In short, euthanasia is different in kind from these interventions. For the record, I note here that everyone has the right to refuse treatment, even if that will result in death, and, as the Declaration of Montreal promulgated by the International Association for the Study of Pain and subsequently accepted by the World Medical Association establishes, it is now regarded as a breach of human rights to fail to provide fully adequate pain management.<\/p>\n

It’s important to note that physicians have never regarded killing as medical treatment. Indeed, the Hippocratic Oath, which has been foundational in medical ethics for over two millennia, originated in order to separate the two roles \u2014 healer and executioner \u2014 of traditional \u201cmedicine men,\u201d the predecessors of physicians. Today’s physicians pledge to care always, cure where possible, and never intentionally to inflict death. Bill 52 directly negates this last obligation.<\/p>\n

From a legal perspective, classifying euthanasia as medical treatment is clearly a strategy to try to avoid the application of the Canadian Criminal Code<\/em> to euthanasia (MAD), which prohibits it as first degree murder, and to bring its governance within Quebec provincial jurisdiction to govern health and social services. If Bill 52 is enacted, it will certainly be challenged as unconstitutional and it will be up to the courts to rule on the legal validity of this approach.<\/p>\n

Bill 52 employs undefined terms, euphemisms and ambiguous language, I presume in order to make euthanasia less likely to be rejected by undecided members of the general public; create confusion which could, likewise, make more Quebecers favour legalizing euthanasia; and to try to bring Bill 52 within the legislative jurisdiction of the Quebec Legislative Assembly…<\/p>\n

Bill 52 does not use the word euthanasia, but refers to \u201cmedical aid in dying\u201d (MAD) which it does not expressly define. Rather, it leaves it to the council of physicians, dentists and pharmacists of each institution \u201cin accordance with the clinical standards established by the professional orders concerned, to adopt clinical protocols applicable to terminal palliative sedation and medical aid in dying\u201d. But it’s clear that MAD is a euphemism for euthanasia or, at the least, is intended to include euthanasia. To avoid any possible confusion on such a fundamental and important change in the law, and so people properly understand that Bill 52 would authorize euthanasia, that should be stated expressly in the Bill, as well as a clear definition of euthanasia…<\/p>\n

That the term \u201cmedical aid in dying\u201d is likely to cause confusion, such as I note above, has just been confirmed by a very recent Ipsos Marketing poll carried out for Vivre dans la dignit\u00e9<\/em>. The survey, carried out 18th to 20th September, 2013, covered 2078 Canadian respondents, 1010 of them from Quebec. The summary of the findings reads, in part:<\/p>\n

The expression \u201cmedical aid in dying\u201d seems very vague to the Quebec population, and is subject to diverse interpretations. Indeed, one third of Quebecers interpret it as being a patient’s request for lethal injection by a medical professional, while nearly 30% understand that it means relieving symptoms through palliative care. Finally, nearly 40% of those surveyed associate it with a discontinuation of intensive medical treatment, or with assisted suicide. This wide diversity of responses demonstrates the uncertainty that surrounds the term \u201cmedical aid in dying\u201d…<\/em><\/p>\n

This information throws serious doubt on previous polls measuring the public’s support for \u201cmedical aid in dying\u201d or \u201ceuthanasia\u201d, since, respectively, a majority or a large percentage of people expressing their support for these two procedures were supporting palliative care or discontinuation of intensive medical care, not euthanasia as properly defined. Consequently, claims by proponents of euthanasia of clear public support for it in Canada must, at the very least, be seriously questioned…<\/p>\n

Legalization of euthanasia gives the value of individual autonomy priority over that of respect for human life. Its message is that personal control is the primary human good. Loss of control is equated with loss of dignity and the protections, especially that of respect for life, which it provides. Because characteristics such as loss of control and of independence are often true of old people or people with disabilities, acceptance of this line of analysis is especially dangerous for them, including because it devalues them in their own eyes and that of others…<\/p>\n

We should keep in mind in this regard that in a secular society, such as Quebec, medicine and law are the two major societal institutions which carry the value of respect for life for the society as a whole. Euthanasia requires society’s complicity in changing the law \u2014 whether in substance or in how it is applied \u2014 to allow it, and, if Bill 52 were enacted, either de jure<\/em> or de facto<\/em> authorizing physicians to carry it out. The value of respect for life at the general societal level cannot escape being seriously damaged in so doing.<\/p>\n

\n

From \u201cSubmission to la Commission de la sant\u00e9 et des services sociaux du Qu\u00e9bec<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Breaking the taboo<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Qu\u00e9bec Ombudsman\u00a0(Quebec National Assembly)
\nSeptember 16, 2013<\/p>\n

The reflections of the Ombudsman in this brief stem from a global vision of end-of-life care. The Ombudsman believes that improving palliative care services and allowing medically assisted dying for people facing terrible suffering and imminent death are intimately related. This is a vitally important point. In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected.<\/p>\n

The sense of responsibility and a concern with balancing individual rights, particularly respect for personal independence, with protection for the vulnerable stand out in the Ombudsman’s analysis of this Bill. The necessary legal and medical guidelines are provided in order to avoid undermining the right to life, a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights and freedoms. The Ombudsman therefore supports the Bill, noting that it is up to every individual who is capable of making a free and informed choice to decide whether or not to accept the available care. It is up to that individual, and only him or her, to choose whether to take advantage of medical aid in dying, provided all the conditions stipulated in Bill 52 are met.<\/p>\n

Some clarifications are needed, however, particularly with respect to the quality of the information that must be provided under the reporting requirements. Other improvements that could be made include expanding access to palliative care, making sure that vulnerable individuals suffer no adverse impacts and clarifying the complaint review system. A total of nine recommendations for improvements to the Bill are made.<\/p>\n

The Ombudsman is aware that Bill 52 deals with a sensitive subject. In many ways, it bears witness to Quebec society’s maturity and openness. This Bill aims to break a taboo by explicitly providing a framework and guidelines, in Quebec law, for humane end-of-life care. The Ombudsman salutes the legislators’ courage and stresses the need to meet end-of-life needs in a spirit of openness and respect for all opinions. Each individual’s recognized sphere of autonomy must include this last decision so that he or she may die with dignity.<\/p>\n

\n

Conclusion to the brief<\/a>\u00a0.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7<\/p>\n

Respecter l’autonomie de la personne<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Raymonde Saint-Germain
\n24 septembre 2013<\/p>\n

Pour ma part, j’ai fond\u00e9 ma r\u00e9flexion autour de quatre grands principes : la reconnaissance de l’importance fondamentale du droit \u00e0 la vie, le respect de l’autonomie de la personne, l’acc\u00e8s concret aux soins palliatifs de fin de vie, et le respect du droit des citoyens de mourir dans la dignit\u00e9. J’ai choisi d’aborder ensuite quelques pr\u00e9occupations concernant la qualit\u00e9 de la reddition de comptes et l’application du r\u00e9gime d’examen des plaintes dans le r\u00e9seau de la sant\u00e9 et des services sociaux. Apr\u00e8s une r\u00e9flexion approfondie qui a inclus l’examen des pratiques des autres pays qui se sont engag\u00e9s dans cette voie, je suis d’avis que l’\u00e9quilibre entre le respect des droits individuels, au premier chef, le respect de l’autonomie de la personne et celui de la protection des personnes vuln\u00e9rables se refl\u00e8te dans toutes les dispositions du projet de loi. Je note le respect des droits et de la libert\u00e9 de chaque m\u00e9decin, notamment en ne l’obligeant pas \u00e0 poser un acte m\u00e9dical qui irait \u00e0 l’encontre de ses valeurs et de ce que sa conscience lui dicte de faire. Notre analyse du projet de loi nous am\u00e8ne \u00e0 conclure qu’il pr\u00e9voit les pr\u00e9cautions essentielles pour assurer l’implantation de l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir de fa\u00e7on strictement balis\u00e9e et toujours dans le respect de la volont\u00e9 de la personne en fin de vie.<\/p>\n

J’aborde maintenant certains \u00e9l\u00e9ments li\u00e9s aux principes que je vous ai annonc\u00e9s pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment. Premier principe, la reconnaissance de l’importance fondamentale du droit \u00e0 la vie. Ce droit est le premier droit que garantisse la Charte canadienne des droits et libert\u00e9s de la personne et la Charte qu\u00e9b\u00e9coise des droits et libert\u00e9s. Concilier ce droit avec l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir peut, dans un premier r\u00e9flexe, sembler paradoxal. Pourtant, le droit civil du Qu\u00e9bec reconna\u00eet depuis longtemps le droit qu’a une personne majeure et apte de refuser des soins m\u00e9dicaux m\u00eame si sa mort doit en r\u00e9sulter. Il y a aussi lieu de concilier ce droit avec le droit \u00e0 la vie tout aussi important. J’estime que le projet de loi n\u00b0 52 r\u00e9ussit cet \u00e9quilibre. La possible d\u00e9valorisation du droit \u00e0 la vie, surtout pour les personnes vuln\u00e9rables, appara\u00eet comme une pr\u00e9occupation centrale pour plusieurs.<\/p>\n

Les trois arguments suivants illustrent les principales craintes que l’on observe souvent dans les discussions publiques sur le sujet. Ceux qui s’objectent font valoir que […] l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir, un, risquerait d’\u00eatre dispens\u00e9e \u00e0 des personnes seules et vuln\u00e9rables qui n’en auraient pas fait la demande ; deux, servirait de moyen pour lib\u00e9rer des lits d’h\u00f4pitaux dans le contexte du vieillissement d\u00e9mographique, lequel exerce une pression de plus en plus importante sur le syst\u00e8me de soins de sant\u00e9 et de services sociaux ; et, trois, induirait un devoir de mourir afin de ne plus \u00eatre un fardeau pour la famille ou la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, surtout pour certaines personnes vuln\u00e9rables, par exemple, des personnes en perte d’autonomie ou des personnes handicap\u00e9es.<\/p>\n

Chacun de ces arguments doit nous faire r\u00e9fl\u00e9chir s\u00e9rieusement. J’ai voulu m’assurer que des balises appropri\u00e9es soient pr\u00e9vues et mises en \u0153uvre de fa\u00e7on concr\u00e8te, afin d’emp\u00eacher que de telles d\u00e9rives puissent survenir, avant de donner mon aval \u00e0 un projet ouvrant la loi \u00e0 la l\u00e9galisation de l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir. […]<\/p>\n

Bref, dans ses principes et sa r\u00e9daction actuelle, j’estime que le projet de loi ne d\u00e9valorise pas l’importance fondamentale du droit \u00e0 la vie. Au contraire, il met ce droit en \u00e9quilibre avec un autre principe tout aussi fondamental, le respect de l’autonomie de la personne. Ce respect est fond\u00e9 sur le consentement aux soins, libre et \u00e9clair\u00e9.<\/p>\n

Notre m\u00e9moire explique pourquoi, dans le cas d’une personne apte, toutes les garanties sont pr\u00e9sentes afin de s’assurer de la validit\u00e9 de son consentement. Se pose par contre la difficile question d’une demande exprim\u00e9e par une personne devenue inapte \u00e0 consentir. Dans ce cas, c’est par l’entremise du r\u00e9gime des directives m\u00e9dicales anticip\u00e9es que cette reconnaissance l\u00e9gale deviendra concr\u00e8te. Les professionnels de la sant\u00e9 auront le devoir de respecter et d’appliquer la volont\u00e9 de la personne concernant les soins ou traitements qu’elle souhaite, ou non, recevoir. Sous r\u00e9serve de pr\u00e9cision \u00e0 \u00eatre apport\u00e9e dans le projet de r\u00e8glement, j’estime qu’il s’agit d’un m\u00e9canisme ad\u00e9quat afin de s’assurer du respect des volont\u00e9s auparavant exprim\u00e9es de fa\u00e7on libre et \u00e9clair\u00e9e par des personnes devenues inaptes \u00e0 consentir par la suite.<\/p>\n

Par contre, selon ma compr\u00e9hension, l’acc\u00e8s \u00e0 l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir ne pourrait faire l’objet d’une directive m\u00e9dicale anticip\u00e9e. La r\u00e9daction du projet de loi sugg\u00e8re que seule une personne apte peut faire cette demande, dans la mesure, \u00e9videmment, o\u00f9 elle satisfait \u00e0 tous les autres crit\u00e8res.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

J’en viens au troisi\u00e8me principe, qui est l’acc\u00e8s concret aux services de soins palliatifs de fin de vie. Le projet de loi est g\u00e9n\u00e9reux dans ses principes et reconna\u00eet \u00e0 toute personne le droit de b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier de soins palliatifs de fin de vie de qualit\u00e9, ce \u00e0 quoi je souscris \u00e9videmment. Toutefois, les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s organisationnelles et les contraintes budg\u00e9taires risquent de peser lourd dans la mat\u00e9rialisation de ce droit. D\u00e9j\u00e0, plusieurs r\u00e9gions ne r\u00e9pondent pas \u00e0 la norme du nombre de lits disponibles en soins palliatifs pr\u00e9vus dans la Politique sur les soins palliatifs de fin de vie de 2004. Un effort concret s’impose pour redresser cette situation. Cela sera d’autant plus n\u00e9cessaire avec l’ouverture faite \u00e0 l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir.<\/p>\n

Je le dis sans d\u00e9tour : L’appui du Protecteur du citoyen \u00e0 l’introduction de l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir est conditionnel au d\u00e9veloppement cons\u00e9quent des soins palliatifs de fin de vie. C’est l\u00e0, il me semble, le premier gage de protection pour les personnes vuln\u00e9rables. Les d\u00e9fis seront de taille. Dans la logique du projet de loi, l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir s’inscrit dans une relation th\u00e9rapeutique patient-m\u00e9decin traitant. Dans le contexte o\u00f9 pr\u00e8s de 40 % des Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois n’ont pas acc\u00e8s \u00e0 un m\u00e9decin de famille, des probl\u00e8mes d’acc\u00e8s se poseront in\u00e9vitablement. C’est pourquoi je recommande de mettre \u00e0 jour la Politique sur les soins palliatifs de fin de vie de 2004 pour y inclure les engagements \u00e9nonc\u00e9s dans ce projet de loi. \u00c9galement, un plan d’action visant \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper \u00e0 court terme les soins palliatifs dans toutes les r\u00e9gions qui le requi\u00e8rent doit \u00eatre pr\u00e9par\u00e9 et mis en \u0153uvre.<\/p>\n

Enfin, le quatri\u00e8me et le dernier principe : le respect du droit des citoyens de mourir dans la dignit\u00e9. En fin de vie, pouvoir b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier d’un environnement stable, o\u00f9 le respect de son intimit\u00e9 est assur\u00e9, est de premi\u00e8re importance. Les derni\u00e8res confidences et les marques d’affection des proches demeurent du domaine intime, et l’acc\u00e8s \u00e0 une chambre individuelle compte parmi les conditions de respect de la vie priv\u00e9e. Je demeure pr\u00e9occup\u00e9e quant \u00e0 l’acc\u00e8s \u00e0 de telles chambres individuelles de fin de vie dans tous les \u00e9tablissements du Qu\u00e9bec. Compte tenu de l’augmentation pr\u00e9visible de la demande et dans le contexte actuel des finances publiques, comment les quelque 280 \u00e9tablissements publics et priv\u00e9s vont-ils parvenir \u00e0 relever ce d\u00e9fi ? Nous le savons, dans plusieurs r\u00e9gions, il manque d\u00e9j\u00e0 des lits en soins palliatifs pour atteindre les objectifs et r\u00e9pondre aux besoins de la population. Le plan d’action minist\u00e9riel que j’ai recommand\u00e9 pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment devient donc d’autant plus n\u00e9cessaire pour que cette disposition de la loi puisse \u00eatre respect\u00e9e.<\/p>\n

\n

Extrait du Journal des d\u00e9bats, version pr\u00e9liminaire<\/a><\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

L’euthanasie ne sera jamais un soin<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Marc Bergeron
\n24 septembre 2013<\/p>\n

Le Rassemblement qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois contre l’euthanasie s’oppose fermement \u00e0 l’introduction de l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir et \u00e0 la s\u00e9dation palliative terminale (avec l’intention d’abr\u00e9ger la vie des malades) dans le syst\u00e8me de sant\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec, ce qui r\u00e9pond \u00e0 la d\u00e9finition de l’euthanasie et qui consiste \u00e0 donner volontairement la mort \u00e0 un malade par une injection l\u00e9tale. Pour des raisons de clart\u00e9 et pour \u00e9viter tout malentendu, le terme \u2014\u00ab euthanasie \u00bb sera utilis\u00e9 dans ce texte pour d\u00e9signer l’aide m\u00e9dicale \u00e0 mourir et la s\u00e9dation palliative terminale avec l’intention d’abr\u00e9ger la vie.<\/p>\n

L’euthanasie n’est pas un soin et ne sera jamais un soin. Selon l’interpr\u00e9tation du ministre de la Justice lui-m\u00eame, de l’article 11 du Code civil du Qu\u00e9bec, un soin est \u00ab toute esp\u00e8ce [sic] d’examen, de pr\u00e9l\u00e8vement, de traitement ou d’intervention de nature m\u00e9dicale, psychologique ou sociale requis ou non par l’\u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 physique ou mental du patient \u00bb. De plus, au sens du Code civil, un soin est l’action de soulager, d’entretenir et de sauvegarder la vie, et non d’y mettre fin de fa\u00e7on brutale, d’une mani\u00e8re volontaire, par une injection l\u00e9tale.<\/p>\n

Le projet de loi n\u00b0 52, qui vise \u00e0 d\u00e9p\u00e9naliser l’euthanasie au Qu\u00e9bec, est ill\u00e9gitime et antid\u00e9mocratique. Ill\u00e9gitime, car il fait fi des recommandations majoritaires des experts et des groupes sociaux vari\u00e9s, venant de toutes les r\u00e9gions du Qu\u00e9bec et qui se sont majoritairement prononc\u00e9s contre l’ouverture \u00e0 l’euthanasie lors de la commission parlementaire Mourir dans la dignit\u00e9, qui a remis son rapport en mars 2012. De plus, il s’appuie sur des sondages d’opinion dans la population g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, qui est tr\u00e8s mal inform\u00e9e des enjeux aussi complexes. Des \u00e9tats g\u00e9n\u00e9raux auraient d\u00fb \u00eatre mis en place pour informer \u00e0 fond les Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, et, m\u00eame, un r\u00e9f\u00e9rendum national aurait d\u00fb \u00eatre d\u00e9clench\u00e9, vu l’importance du sujet.<\/p>\n

Antid\u00e9mocratique, car il contourne outrageusement le Code criminel canadien, qui rel\u00e8ve du gouvernement du Canada et qui interdit formellement l’homicide, l’euthanasie et le suicide assist\u00e9. Le Qu\u00e9bec donne le mauvais exemple \u00e0 sa population en mati\u00e8re de respect des lois avec l’introduction du projet de loi n\u00b0 52, et, de ce fait, il n’incite pas ses citoyens \u00e0 respecter ses propres lois.<\/p>\n

Le projet de loi no\u00a052 est inutile. Nous sommes capables, au Qu\u00e9bec, avec de bonnes \u00e9quipes de soins palliatifs et avec la science moderne contemporaine, avec un bon esprit de solidarit\u00e9 \u2014 un th\u00e8me qui est tr\u00e8s cher \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re ministre, madame Pauline Marois \u2014, de prendre soin et de traiter toute douleur physique ou psychologique ou de toute autre nature. Les soins palliatifs g\u00e9n\u00e9ralis\u00e9s \u00e0 la grandeur du Qu\u00e9bec, donn\u00e9s par des personnes comp\u00e9tentes, gratuits et rapidement disponibles, rendent caduque le besoin de donner intentionnellement la mort \u00e0 nos concitoyens.<\/p>\n

L’euthanasie n’est pas la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 l’acharnement th\u00e9rapeutique, qui d’ailleurs est fort bien encadr\u00e9 au plan r\u00e9glementaire. L’acharnement th\u00e9rapeutique r\u00e9sulte principalement des demandes des patients et de leur famille, non pas seulement des m\u00e9decins qui veulent conserver la vie \u00e0 tout prix, en d\u00e9pit du fait qu’il n’y ait plus d’espoir de gu\u00e9rison.<\/p>\n

L’ouverture \u00e0 l’euthanasie est extr\u00eamement dangereuse pour la sant\u00e9 et la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de tous les citoyens du Qu\u00e9bec, surtout les plus vuln\u00e9rables comme les personnes \u00e2g\u00e9es, isol\u00e9es ou ayant des troubles cognitifs, ou encore des malades atteints de troubles psychiatriques. Elles ne pourront plus compter sur la protection universelle et inconditionnelle que leur conf\u00e8re le Code criminel canadien, qui seul est garant de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de tous les citoyens.<\/p>\n

Le cadre r\u00e9glementaire fixant les conditions d’\u00e9ligibilit\u00e9 \u00e0 l’euthanasie s’\u00e9largira au fil des ann\u00e9es, comme cela se passe en Belgique et en Hollande, et de nouvelles indications vont appara\u00eetre. \u00c0 preuve, des groupes ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 recommand\u00e9 \u00e0 cette Commission d’inclure des malades atteints de d\u00e9mence. De plus, il est dangereux d’accorder le pouvoir aux m\u00e9decins de donner la mort, selon l’avis du Comit\u00e9 consultatif national d’\u00e9thique au pr\u00e9sident de la R\u00e9publique fran\u00e7aise en juillet 2013. Les m\u00e9decins seront prot\u00e9g\u00e9s par ce projet de loi, mais pas les malades.<\/p>\n

La personne humaine est digne de par sa propre nature, ce qui la distingue de l’animal. Ce n’est pas parce qu’elle est \u00e2g\u00e9e ou malade qu’elle perd sa dignit\u00e9 intrins\u00e8que. Offrir l’euthanasie \u00e0 un \u00eatre humain parce qu’il est malade constitue dans les faits un d\u00e9nigrement de son \u00e9tat de dignit\u00e9. En ce qui concerne l’autonomie de l’individu et la place pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rante que lui conf\u00e8re le projet de loi n\u00b0 52, cette autonomie n’est pas absolue et elle s’inscrit dans un cadre personnel, familial et soci\u00e9tal dont il faut tenir compte. En l\u00e9gif\u00e9rant et en permettant l’euthanasie pour l’un, on compromet irr\u00e9m\u00e9diablement la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de tous les autres citoyens. Habiller Pierre pour d\u00e9shabiller Paul.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

En conclusion, le projet de loi n\u00b0 52 est un mauvais projet de loi qui ne s’int\u00e9resse qu’\u00e0 donner la mort \u00e0 ses concitoyens malades et qui occulte compl\u00e8tement le d\u00e9veloppement des soins palliatifs au Qu\u00e9bec selon les recommandations de la commission parlementaire Mourir dans la dignit\u00e9 de 2012. Comme tel, il doit prendre le chemin des tablettes, et le gouvernement du Qu\u00e9bec, s’il d\u00e9sire v\u00e9ritablement le bien-\u00eatre et la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de ses citoyens, doit reprendre compl\u00e8tement le d\u00e9bat public en cr\u00e9ant des \u00e9tats g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, selon la suggestion du Comit\u00e9 consultatif national d’\u00e9thique fran\u00e7ais. Des soins palliatifs disponibles \u00e0 tous les Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, donn\u00e9s par des personnes comp\u00e9tentes et empathiques, voil\u00e0 ce dont nous avons besoin imm\u00e9diatement pour contrer la souffrance de nos concitoyens. Merci !<\/p>\n

\n

Extrait du Journal des d\u00e9bats, version pr\u00e9liminaire<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Photo: Shutterstock by\u00a0Patrick Thomas<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Legalizing killing through confusion Margaret Somerville October 9, 2013 My concern is that my appearance here might be perceived as my being complicit in helping you to develop Bill 52’s \u201cmanagement guidelines\u201d for euthanasia. I wish to make it clear that I totally reject legalizing euthanasia, Bill 52 and any such guidelines… It is inherently […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":274009,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","ep_exclude_from_search":false,"apple_news_api_created_at":"2025-10-08T00:50:10Z","apple_news_api_id":"500994f6-2adf-45e2-9a6b-d58ccc0c30c0","apple_news_api_modified_at":"2025-10-08T00:50:10Z","apple_news_api_revision":"AAAAAAAAAAD\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/w==","apple_news_api_share_url":"https:\/\/apple.news\/AUAmU9irfReKaa9WMzAwwwA","apple_news_cover_media_provider":"image","apple_news_coverimage":0,"apple_news_coverimage_caption":"","apple_news_cover_video_id":0,"apple_news_cover_video_url":"","apple_news_cover_embedwebvideo_url":"","apple_news_is_hidden":"","apple_news_is_paid":"","apple_news_is_preview":"","apple_news_is_sponsored":"","apple_news_maturity_rating":"","apple_news_metadata":"\"\"","apple_news_pullquote":"","apple_news_pullquote_position":"","apple_news_slug":"","apple_news_sections":[],"apple_news_suppress_video_url":false,"apple_news_use_image_component":false},"categories":[9359,9377],"tags":[8450],"article-status":[],"irpp-category":[4339,4251,4286],"section":[],"irpp-tag":[7082],"class_list":["post-263537","issues","type-issues","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-loi-droits","category-sante","tag-assisted-dying-fr","irpp-category-loi-et-justice","irpp-category-politique-sociale","irpp-category-sante","irpp-tag-aide-medicale-a-mourir"],"acf":[],"apple_news_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\nDebating euthanasia<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Debating euthanasia\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Legalizing killing through confusion Margaret Somerville October 9, 2013 My concern is that my appearance here might be perceived as my being complicit in helping you to develop Bill 52’s \u201cmanagement guidelines\u201d for euthanasia. I wish to make it clear that I totally reject legalizing euthanasia, Bill 52 and any such guidelines… It is inherently […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Policy Options\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-08T00:50:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"700\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@irpp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/\",\"name\":\"Debating euthanasia\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-11-02T05:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-08T00:50:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg\",\"width\":2000,\"height\":700},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vive Montr\u00e9al libre\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/2013\/11\/vive-montreal-libre\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Debating euthanasia\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/\",\"name\":\"Policy Options\",\"description\":\"Institute for Research on Public Policy\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Debating euthanasia","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Debating euthanasia","og_description":"Legalizing killing through confusion Margaret Somerville October 9, 2013 My concern is that my appearance here might be perceived as my being complicit in helping you to develop Bill 52’s \u201cmanagement guidelines\u201d for euthanasia. I wish to make it clear that I totally reject legalizing euthanasia, Bill 52 and any such guidelines… It is inherently […]","og_url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/","og_site_name":"Policy Options","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/IRPP.org","article_modified_time":"2025-10-08T00:50:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":700,"url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@irpp","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/","name":"Debating euthanasia","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg","datePublished":"2013-11-02T05:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-08T00:50:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/WordPress-Image-19-4.jpg","width":2000,"height":700},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/2013\/11\/debating-euthanasia\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vive Montr\u00e9al libre","item":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/2013\/11\/vive-montreal-libre\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Debating euthanasia"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/#website","url":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/","name":"Policy Options","description":"Institute for Research on Public Policy","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues\/263537","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issues"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/issues"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/274009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263537"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263537"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263537"},{"taxonomy":"article-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-status?post=263537"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-category?post=263537"},{"taxonomy":"section","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/section?post=263537"},{"taxonomy":"irpp-tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/irpp-tag?post=263537"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}