the impacts of other medical conditions or health related factors such as age
or frailty. Physicians and nurse practitioners have the necessary expertise to
evaluate each person’s unique circumstances and can effectively judge when
a person is on a trajectory toward death. While medical professionals do not
need to be able to clearly predict exactly how or when a person will die, the
person’s death would need to be foreseeable in the not too distant future.
F. Discussion and Analysis
 I begin the discussion by explaining why this application
is misconceived, and then I shall go on to explain why Ontario’s
and Canada’s response to it is unhelpful.
 AB’s application appears to be a constitutional challenge
to Bill C-14. However, AB’s plight is not caused by Bill C-14. Her
plight is caused by Physician 1’s abundance of caution and misunderstanding of the meaning of the statute.
 AB’s application is not like the cases now pending in British Columbia and Quebec that genuinely raise constitutional
issues about whether Bill C-14 contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I understand it, those cases
involve applicants who are suffering grievous and irremediable
harm but for whom it cannot be said that death has become
reasonably foreseeable. In contrast, in the case at bar, two physicians have said and continue to say that AB’s death is reasonably foreseeable. Thus, AB’s circumstances come within the
ambit of the statute.
 With no disrespect intended, AB’s submission that her
constitutional rights have been contravened is ill conceived. But
for actually receiving the assistance, it appears that AB qualifies
for medical assistance in dying. The court does have jurisdiction
to enforce a person’s Charter rights, but in the case at bar, AB’s
constitutionally protected right to medical assistance in dying is
not being contravened by any government actor or by some constitutional deficiency in Bill C-14, as may be the case in the
pending cases in British Columbia and Quebec. In the case at
bar, AB’s problem is not some constitutional deficiency in Bill
C-14; the problem is in the mind of the physicians — not in the
mind of the legislator who intended that persons like AB have
the right, in certain circumstances, to request and obtain medical assistance in dying from the medical profession without pre-authorization of the judiciary.
 Turning to why Ontario’s and Canada’s response to
AB’s application and her plight is unhelpful, with no disrespect
intended, the Attorney Generals cannot ignore AB’s plight and in
one breadth submit that her application is unnecessary but then
refuse to take a position as to whether AB meets the criteria for