Read on Twitter
It's frickin' WILD that someone could write this without once acknowledging that access to MAiD for the non-terminally ill is literally a threshold requirement by the Supreme Court. It's the existing legislation that violates the Charter, not the new bill. https://twitter.com/kcongram/status/1357476527911403522
Almost everything about these objections is valid: we're not putting resources in to give many disabled people the quality of life they deserve. We're terrible on home care, on end of life care generally. BUT... 2/n
Restricting the autonomy of people who have the capacity to choose the manner in which their suffering ends isn't the answer to those systemic problems. 3/n
The objections to Bill C-7 thus end up being deeply patronizing to the extent they assume non-terminal disabled people are unable to assess their own situation or simply shouldn't be able to make those determinations for themselves. 4/4
