Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 1 of 1
View Garnett Genuis Profile
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment and pose a question to the member around one of the strands in today's debate.
Members on our side have raised the need for safeguards because of the risk of abuse. Responding to an argument that was not made, government members have said they trust health care professionals to make good decisions in the vast majority of cases.
Of course, we also trust health care providers to make good decisions, to have good intentions and to do all they can to stay within the bounds of a patient's well-being in the vast majority of cases. However, the reason we have safeguards is to deal with that small minority of cases in which someone could actually lose his or her life as a result of pressure, as a result of a proper review not taking place, or as a result of being rushed into decisions in less than ideal circumstances.
We talked about examples of this small minority of cases in which human lives are still very much in the balance. Because of this need to have safeguards for these situations, would the member accept that a default to a 10-day reflection period would provide some degree of insulation against the possible risk of someone in a dark moment, in a short-term thinking process, opting for something that on balance they would actually not opt for with the proper engagement of their full support structure?
The 10-day reflection period can be waived in extreme circumstances already, so what is wrong with a 10-day reflection period?
Result: 1 - 1 of 1

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data