obtaining medical assistance in dying, which is the reason why
AB’s application would be and is unnecessary.
 It is equally unhelpful for Ontario and Canada to say that
no declaration should issue because there is no live controversy
between them and AB. They say there is no dispute because
medical assistance in dying is available in Ontario without pre-approval from the court. They oppose court approvals as unnecessary and as adding expense and delay for vulnerable patients
who wish to access medical assistance in dying in accordance
with the regime crafted by Parliament.
 However, there is in fact a live controversy before the
court. AB, whose plight is pitiful, asserts that her constitutionally protected civil rights have been contravened, and she seeks
a remedy. Ontario and Canada dispute that her rights have been
violated on their account, and they ask that her application be
dismissed leaving her in her distressing and awful plight.
 Ontario and Canada, however, are quite correct in submitting that it is not a superior court’s job to appropriate Physician 1’s job and make an order stating that AB meets all of the
Criminal Code’s criteria for medical assistance in dying. With
the enactment of Bill C-14 that job is for the medical profession,
and it is not for the court to give confirming comforting orders.
 These observations about why this application is misconceived and about why the response to it is unhelpful bring the
matter back to the real problem, which is Physician 1’s abundance of caution and apprehensive misunderstanding about the
meaning of Bill C-14.
 With no disrespect intended to Physician 1, I say he misunderstands the regime of Bill C-14, because he cannot in one
breadth say that from a medical point of view, AB’s natural death
is reasonably foreseeable but he is uncertain about proceeding
because of the vagueness of the term “reasonably foreseeable”.
 I agree with Ontario and Canada that Bill C-14’s legislative history (and its language) demonstrates Parliament’s intention that the physicians and nurse practitioners who have been
asked to provide medical assistance in dying are exclusively
responsible for deciding whether the Code’s criteria are satisfied
without any pre-authorization from the courts.
 I also agree with Ontario and Canada that AB cannot ask
the court to pre-empt the medical practitioners and make the
decision for them. The legislation requires the physician
or nurse practitioner providing medical assistance in dying to
“personally” form an opinion and to ensure that another independent physician or nurse practitioner has provided a written
opinion confirming that the person meets all of the criteria