44th Parl. 1st Sess.

February 15, 2024 10:00AM

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

Feb/15/24 1:26:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am a little thrown off by my colleague's comments. I have a friend who had a second kidney transplant, and complications ensued. She was told to go home, that her days were numbered. She was told that they could not give her any more anti-rejection drugs for her kidney and that her kidney would waste away, and so would she. At that point, in a panic, she asked if she could at least have access to MAID. She was told that she could access it in due course and was told to call to schedule an assessment. As if by some miracle, she got an unbelievable break: The transplanted kidney continued to thrive without the anti-rejection drugs, which she had stopped taking. She is still with us today, and she is listening. She did not need MAID. She always said that she was able to be at peace because she knew that she would always have that option, no matter what happened. I cannot understand why members are referring to all kinds of nonsense today, using big words like “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia”, when we are not the experts. We are here simply to lay the groundwork so that experts can have their say in due course. That is what happened to my friend. I would like to know where our colleague is going with his speeches on euthanizing children. That is horrifying, and I do not understand his point. Can he explain it to me?

256 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 283