TRYING TO ACCESS BILL C-14

Michael Valvasori
BILL C-14 is not a licence to kill as its been called. It is, however, a disgraceful piece of legislature, violating
a persons fundamental freedoms, their equality rights, and their constitution, not to mention takes away a persons
autonomy, leaving all healthcare decisions in the hands of doctors. BILL C-14 unfairly pits doctors against their
patients.
My name is Michael Valvasori. Im 35 years old, from Hamilton, Ontario. Im writing this, not for sympathy, not
for charity, not for any sort of gain, but to convey a message. Im in the position to lend an objective, neutral,
first-hand view on the subject. I, myself, am seeking access to medical assistance in dying.
The last two-in-a-half decades of my life have been hard. It has been a difficult journey. In March of 1990, when
I was 9 years old, I suffered a stroke, medically diagnosed as a Basilar Arterial Thrombosis, resulting in a brain
stem infarction, leaving me semi-quadriplegic. Ive had to live with this condition from a young age, effecting
every aspect of my life. The stroke left me in a wheelchair, only the use of my left arm, and poor speech.

My condition is both grievous and irremediable, at an advanced state, irreversible and incurable, and has been
and will continue on a course of decline in capability. This disability has caused, and will continue to cause,
severe emotional and psychological suffering, suffering that, by any conventional means, none of which are
considerable or acceptable, can or will relieve my situation. Im in an advanced state of deformity and irreversible
decline. My spines twisting, my rib cage resting on top of my pelvic bone. My speech is getting worse. Im in
more pain: my legs, hips, arms, wrist, and back, they all ache constantly.

The above wording, for the most part, was taken directly from BILL C-14. I first learned of BILL C-14 back in
early June. I was elated, but, at the same time, angered that my doctor had not told me about it sooner, or that it
was even an option for end-of-life care.
In late July, I drafted a letter requesting medical assistance in dying, presented it to my doctor, and was turned
away. I meet all of the eligibility criteria. I am fully competent, fully capable of making decisions pertaining to
my health, body, and liberty, while receiving no form of external pressure. I am not vulnerable or susceptible.
I am not vulnerable to any outside influence, coercion, or pressure. The decision for medical assistance in dying
is mine, and mine alone. It is my right to be autonomous, to be free from outside intervention and interference. It
is my right to be the sole decision maker of all things pertaining to my health, body, and liberty. Being
autonomous, having the freedoms of thought, opinion, and belief, it is also my right to interpret, question, and
argue against the laws, within the Constitution, within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, more
importantly, within the laws set forth in BILL C-14, without judgement, without bias, and without discrimination.
A person, a logical, rational, fully competent person, does not just decide, at the drop of a hat, to end their life. A
great deal of thought and careful consideration goes into the decision. They consider their diagnosis, their
prognosis, their quality of life, and their inevitable deterioration of quality of life, not to mention the pain that
theyre in, the pain that they will forever be in, and especially especially the years and decades of time that
they have left to endure.
When someones in pain, debilitated, and suffering, suffering incurably and without hope, without the will or
desire to go on, who else, other than themselves, has the right to judge them, to intervene, to fault or belittle them
because they wish an end to their life, to say that all they need is love and compassion? Love and compassion
cant fix everything. Who has the right to take away a persons autonomy, a persons freedom of thought, a
persons liberty? Liberty, dignity, and relief, for some, can only be found in death. Im not just speaking for
myself, but for many others across this province, across Canada as well, those who perhaps cant put their wishes
into words or articulate their feelings to convey the torments they suffer.
The one thing that I fear the most is living the rest of my life, knowing that things will not get better for me, only
worse, worse physically, emotionally, and psychologically, bringing me continually to new-found depths of pain
and torment. I fear waking up each day, suffering through the same routines, the same indignities. I fear the pain,
the anxiety, and the many threatening risks of my condition, that I may be suddenly plagued by infection, trips to
the hospital, or days spent in bed. All of these are inevitable. I no longer want to live like this. And now, lawfully,
I no longer have to.
In my opinion, doctors who disregard the law, disregard or deny medical treatment, are committing medical
malpractice, criminal negligence, and dereliction of duty. Perhaps examples need to be made of them. Legal
precedents need to be set. Perhaps physicians need to be taken to court. An argument can be made that any doctor,
by refusing a patients request for medical assistance in dying, which is a medical treatment, causes further harm,
prolongs pain, and subjects the patient to further physical, emotional, and psychological suffering. Even if the
request for medical assistance in dying conflicts with a medical practitioners own personal ethics, they must still
act in accordance with their chosen profession, and in accordance with the law, to appropriately serve their
2

patients healthcare directives and supply a suitable and acceptable treatment. If they are unwilling to comply
with the law, they must face legal consequences.
I am, at this point, and going forward, beyond any help, beyond any acceptable treatment, and beyond any form
of normality, for it is my physical disability, which is permanent and incurable, that is the catalyst for all of my
other insufferable grievances. When and how my death occurs should be decided by myself, and certainly by no
other. I now have the right to choose when and how my death happens, and that it happens in a humane and
dignified manner, as opposed to the cruel, unpredictable, and undignified ways in which a natural death would
occur.
Doctors have their rights of conscience, their rights of personal ethics, but, professionally, they are ultimately
obligated to carry out their duties, their now lawful duties, and their responsibilities. They can no longer turn
away. They can no longer hide. The do nothing approach should no longer be acceptable.
It was a mistake to give medical practitioners or nurse practitioners any authority, as was given to them in BILL
C-14. They are all morally and ethically biased to this treatment. All governance over this matter should have
been left up to the courts. Judges base their decisions according to the law, according to reason, as we learned in
the Carter vs Canada case, where they found that the people were being let down, that they were being violated,
and that they were being discriminated against. Look it up. Google it. Read it for yourselves.
Over 100 cases of physician assisted suicide have taken place across Canada since June, since the new law was
passed. If some doctors are refusing to get on board with this new treatment, then simply take them out of the
equation.
BILL C-14 robs me of any personal autonomy, violates my constitution, and infringes upon my fundamental
freedoms, condemning me to a life of misery, a life of pain, with no end in sight. I feel that is, to say the least,
cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and, arguably, a form of slavery and oppression. What good is having
a constitution if were not going to abide by it and use it to defend ourselves from tyranny?
BILL C-14 still has a few roots entrenched deeply in the past. Voices of those who are suffering need to be heard,
not those of bleeding-heart protesters, religious radicals, catholic crusaders, or general do-gooders, most of whom
have no business weighing in on this matter. Its one thing to have an opinion, but to use it to discredit or put
down others based on theirs is just a form of harassment, bullying, or shaming, and it accomplishes nothing, other
than to suspend the matter in endless debate. If you dont have a foot in this fight, stay out of it. Let it be discussed
and resolved, without bias, prejudice, or outside interference.
Im merely looking to convey my story and views, as well as urge others like me to convey their stories and their
views. I, myself, do have a foot in this fight. Others like me, those worse off, and those suffering from physical,
mental, or psychiatric disorder, as well as those with an incurable illness, disease, or disability: we no longer have
to live a life of servitude, enslaved to a disabling and constricting routine, day in, day out, all while enduring pain,
chronic depression, and indignity, suffering the perils of a disability or illness that is debilitating, in a state of
decline, and incurable. We now have that right. We have that freedom.
3

I had never imagined anything for myself but a long, drawn-out, meaningless natural life. Ive overcome my
disabilities, had a fair run, and now, in my advanced state, Im making the decision to end my life with dignity. I
now have the right, and the freedom, acknowledged and recognized by the law, to do so. Freedom is what makes
Canada great. Were almost there, almost.
BILL C-14 is still being branded or stigmatized as being an end-of-life treatment only for those who are terminal.
Yet, if youve read BILL C-14, it actually says otherwise. Basically, youre eligible if: youre over 18 years of
age, receiving government funding, have a grievous and irremediable illness, disease, or disability, that is at an
advanced state, irreversible and incurable, and has been and will continue on a course of decline in capability,
and that illness, disease, or disability has caused, and will continue to cause, severe emotional and psychological
suffering, suffering that, by any conventional means, none of which are considerable or acceptable, can or will
relieve your situation.

I never did trust doctors, but their negligence to inform people about this end-of-life treatment is just sheer
disregard. Its a conscious, negligible act, on their part, that prolongs the pain and suffering of the patient. Is that
moral or ethical?

BILL C-14 has been compared to Eugenics, seen as the government aiming to kill off undesirable groups of
people, which is complete and utter nonsense. It is a medical treatment, sought out by the suffering, to relieve
their pain. Its completely voluntary, with no forms of external pressure. In fact, gaining access to MAID is
difficult, to say the least. The last I heard, only 1 in 10 who are seeking medical assistance in dying actually
receive treatment, meaning a lot of people are left to suffer. There are many safeguards in place, many obstacles.
I think there are too many restrictions, especially that a person needs two letters by two independent doctors,
confirming ones eligibility, as well as if they should receive medical assistance in dying. That takes the decision
solely out of patients hands, leaving them vulnerable. Thats what makes BILL C-14 dangerous. The decision
should be up to the patient who is seeking MAID, and no one else. Thats the part that needs to be amended as
soon as possible.
This matter, the execution of this new law, needs to be looked into, both directly and immediately. This matter
needs to be taken more seriously and looked at from the perspective of those who are living with, and suffering
from, incurable illnesses, deceases, or disabilities. MAID needs to be broadened in respect to all the unique
individuals out there, those who are suffering from rare illnesses or disabilities. BILL C-14 does not strike the
appropriate balance and is discriminatory, to say the least.
The term reasonably foreseeable is, when broken down, just an ambiguous figure of speech that holds, both in
and of itself, a wide range of meanings, none of which demonstrate a measurable, calculable, approximate, or
specific length of time. Why did the Liberals fight so hard to keep it in BILL C-14? It means nothing. Its a pairing
of words, without meaning, meant to confuse, cast doubt, and provide a wormhole to circumvent a persons rights,
discriminating against their age.
Human life expectancy, for males in Ontario, according to Statistics Canada, is estimated to be at around 79 years.
Therefore, my death, as well as the whole population of males in Ontario, has already been forecasted, already
been determined and recognized by the province, as being reasonably foreseeable. The term is left unclarified and
undefined; therefore, its meaning can be observed to be days, months, years, or even decades. It is left completely
open to interpretation. Having already lived 35 years, and taking into consideration my diagnosis, my prognosis,
as well as all of the other unpredictable and threatening factors of my situation, my death has in fact become,
without a doubt, reasonably foreseeable.
Already knowing the forecasted life expectancy in the province, its like saying: It is both reasonable and
foreseeable that a male in Ontario will die within their lifetime. How stupid does Justin Trudeau and his Liberals
think we are? How does that terminology strike the appropriate balance? It is an obsolete term; accept it, admit
it, and, unless you like being seen as complete morons, get rid of it.
The word terminal appears nowhere in BILL C-14, at least not under the eligibility criteria. Why was it taken
out, if not to broaden the scope of suitability to those suffering with an incurable illness, disease, or disability?
The terms grievous and irremediable and irreversible and incurable are all that are needed to strike the
appropriate balance and to justify an individuals right to seek medical assistance in dying.

Also, the slippery slope metaphor that keeps being used is just an obvious diversion, a diversion that apparently
works on some people, a diversion that is, again, both in and of itself, neither demonstrable nor conclusive in its
meaning. It can be struck down in any courtroom.
Mr. Trudeau, you, yourself, are turning a blind eye to this subject. You are being nave and negligent. Your party
is standing in the way of progress. If anyone is not protecting the vulnerable, its you, by your inaction, indecision,
and disinclination to care about this issue. Instead, your government is combatting challenges by suffering
Canadians. BILL C-14, itself, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You, and your Liberals, are
breaking the law, and should be held accountable.
The Liberal government needs to implement new programs, new policies, and better strategies to deliver this
treatment. Dont make all the suffering, all the disabled, those with limited means or mobility, jump through
hoops to get legal aid and lawyers, all to gain proper access to what is already law. Because of you, Justin, doctors
are afraid to deliver this treatment. Because of religious bias and outdated, nonsensical beliefs, doctors, and entire
institutions, are in opposition to medical assistance in dying. My doctor even told me that I was, in fact, eligible,
but that she would not be part of it. BILL C-14 makes it clear that all who are party to MAID are now exempt
from any criminal culpability. Yet, they refuse, they stall, or they say, Give it more time. Reprimand them, for
its their duty, their oath, to do no harm to their patients. Doctors are not acting in accordance with the law or
their patients best interests. Fine them, suspend their medical licenses; subjugate them. Or bypass them
altogether. Remove them from BILL C-14. Designate a new or existing branch of law to handle these requests,
to have full authority and governance over this issue. Or better yet, allow a court to pass down judgement on a
case-by-case basis, which better acknowledges and protects individuals seeking access to medical assistance in
dying. The province of Ontario needs to assemble its own panel, not of doctors or nurses, but of highly-skilled
specialists, bound by no oath, to adhere solely to the decisions passed down by the courts, their sole purpose being
to medically assist a person in dying. They (the panel) are to oversee, facilitate, and regulate the process, to
monitor and deliver oral or intravenous drugs.
Medical assistance in dying, or whatever you want to call it by, is not a trend; its not a craze, its not something
that is just going to go away. It needs to be integrated into our healthcare system. Throwing money at it to sweep
it under the carpet, to keep it hidden, to keep it tied up in court until the financially weaker parties have to give
up fighting, is just underhanded, unjust, and irresponsible. Any government who ignores or neglects suffering of
its people, is doing their country a great disservice.
Its very frustrating, for me, to now have this option, and yet be denied access to it. I have made a written request
for this treatment, given my express consent, presented it to my doctor, and have gotten nowhere. I was prepared
to follow the proper protocols. Its time for an intervention, for an unbiased, rational, and lawful party to intervene,
to protect Canadians from its own government.
Im currently looking into and pursuing my legal options. I have applied for Test Case Funding, though Legal
Aid Ontario. My hope was to raise awareness, get others on board, and get this law amended. However, I have
since been denied Test Case Funding, as well as denied Legal Aid altogether, simply because I wanted to fight
for my lawful access to BILL C-14. My attempts were sabotaged, thwarted, blocked. Legal Aid broke its own
mandate to stop me. Why? Because theyre funded by the Ontario government? I refuse to fly off to Switzerland
6

or someplace, just to spend thousands, just to overdose. Its ridiculous that I have to legally fight for access to
what is already law here in Ontario.
I whole-heartedly support medical assistance in dying. It is the next logical step for Canada, ensuring complete
freedom and justice for its people. Its time to fight the fight that needs to be fought. Amend BILL C-14.