Under the current law (c. S-32.0001), hospices have the choice of whether or not to allow their patients to use medical assistance in dying (MAID) as an end-of-life method. Through Bill 38, the government wants to eliminate this choice and force all palliative care homes to provide MAID, without thereby safeguarding the acquired rights of existing homes. This is contrary to all principles of legislation and would set a bad precedent for the future.
Nothing prevents Parliament from legislating for the future, whether its law is good or bad. But it must refrain from legislating retroactively, for the past. It only does so in quite exceptional cases, which is far from the case here.
In Quebec, palliative care homes are non-profit organizations that often receive more than 50% of their funding from donations generously provided by the community. They need to fundraise both for their construction costs (for which the government provides nothing) and for their annual operation.
Although I am a member of the board of directors of the St-Raphaël palliative care home and day centre, I am writing this letter in a purely personal capacity, having myself participated in the drafting of several Quebec laws and being familiar with the rules legislative drafting.
Maison St-Raphaël has decided, even before opening its doors and in accordance with the law, not to allow its beneficiaries to choose MAID as a means of end-of-life within its walls, and has publicly announced this. She makes this clear to all those who want to use her services. It is with this in mind that it has made its contractual commitments and is seeking the generosity of the public, from whom it has received donations worth more than fifteen million dollars. The new law would therefore put her in an inextricable situation.
Fortunately, this can be easily avoided: it suffices that the new law preserves the acquired rights of the existing houses which do not allow the choice of MA within their walls and that the Parliament only legislates for the houses created in the future. This is always done in similar cases, because respect for acquired rights is an essential principle of justice universally respected.
To see in video