Q&A with Toronto’s Catholic archbishop on assisted dying legislation

[Thomas Cardinal Collins/Global News]

The federal government has until June 6 to pass a new law on doctor-assisted death after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the existing law more than a year ago as a violation of Charter rights.

That new legislation was tabled in Parliament last Thursday.

The Liberal government says it will allow a free vote by MPs on the bill and on Tuesday, faith leaders from across the religious spectrum held a news conference in Ottawa to voice their opposition to the legalization of assisted death in Canada.

Yahoo Canada News spoke to one of them, Thomas Cardinal Collins, archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto and a member of the Coalition for HealthCare and Conscience, about the new law.

Q: Why go to Ottawa? What is your message?

Right now Bill C-14 is being considered by Parliament and it is basically the introduction of euthanasia or assisted suicide into our country. This is deeply troubling to many people, especially those groups which are actually on the ground providing loving care to people who are suffering, in many hospitals. For example, the Catholic Church runs hundreds of hospitals and the Salvation Army does, as well.

We have a group that represents the Evangelical churches, the Salvation Army, the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Roman Catholic community. That’s a pretty broad spread of people and we are all expressing our common concern about the introduction of euthanasia.

Q: Why bring these groups together?

As you can see, these are very diverse faith groups that do not agree on many different and very profound issues. But we are, all of us, very deeply committed to protecting the most vulnerable.

We are all right there at the bedside caring for people who are suffering.

When the government and the Supreme Court of Canada makes this decision that it’s going to be legal to kill another person… we do believe — I speak for Catholics — that when a person is dying that we do not need to give them all kinds of extra, disproportionate medical care to extend their life artificially. We’re all going to die. But when a person is dying we need to give them medical assistance.

I think we’ve all had personal experiences of people we love who have been dying. I think of my sister dying of pancreatic cancer, where getting medical assistance for pain control and things of that nature.

But that is profoundly different — medically helping a person who is dying — to killing them.

Q: The government has introduced this law because of the Supreme Court ruling. How could they abide by the ruling and also your hopes?

That is a profoundly difficult question and one that is troubling the hearts and souls of legislators who are wrestling with this.

I have great respect for the Supreme Court and I’m sure, having read the Carter decision many times, that they were operating out of a desire to help and a benevolent disposition. But I think they are profoundly misguided.

But there it is. It’s a decision that has been made and I think the ultimate goal would be to reverse that decision.

I don’t know what the legislators are going to do. If they feel compelled to pass a law, what we would ask is that if you’re going to implement this — which we don’t think should happen — but if it’s going to happen, we do think you need to have conscience protections for individual physicians and health care facilities.

READ MORE: Canada’s physician-assisted dying bill explained

Q: Does the legislation provide that protection?

No. It doesn’t provide any protection.

[Justice officials say the bill does not compel any physician or health care worker to take part in physician-assisted death. Rather, it removes the criminal penalty for those who do so in accordance with the regulation. Collins says that is not good enough.]

There’s a vague hint in one of the preamble passages…. That’s all there is yet this is going to be launched upon us, presumably, on June 7. And we do know already that in the preliminary report of the joint parliamentary committee, they were indeed pushing for all kinds of things that precisely are pressuring doctors and institutions to do this.

It’s not in the bill yet – it’s not in this bill – but notice in the preamble they say issues are going to be looked at down the road, even children, minors, the psychologically troubled, dementia people pre-planning their deaths. So they’re not there but we’re going to look at that further down the road. That is troubling.

We don’t want any law at all. Any restrictions, they’re not going to last. In Belgium, there was a tight, tight law that started but in a few years it was relaxed, one step after another.

Q: Are there parallels between the debate over assisted dying and the abortion debate?

I think there may very well be because abortion is also an issue of profound conscience concern for many people. And I think if you look at the group that were there today, they’re the very ones who are involved in trying to help bring life, not death.

It is our conviction that life is sacred from the first moment of conception to natural death. Not beyond natural death. We don’t believe that life has to be extended unnecessarily, but to natural death.

I’m very troubled at the assault on one end of our journey through this world and very troubled now at the other end.

Q: The legislation is imminent. Where does your campaign go? Could it end up in court?

I wouldn’t want to speculate. What we are doing is making our positions clearly known.

Q: You have mentioned improvements to palliative care as an alternative. What kind of improvements?

Anything.

In Toronto, we’re giving $1 million to Providence [Healthcare] centre’s new palliative care wing. So we’re trying to do things ourselves but compared to the need, the government certainly could help more.

[The Liberal budget promised $3 billion over four years for better home care, including palliative care. That includes $415 million this year.]

Q: And what reaction have you had from lawmakers?

At every level we’re meeting with lawmakers again and again and again, trying to discuss this issue.

This interview has been condensed and edited.