Furthermore, the notwithstanding clause is just sitting there, waiting to be used, should judges lose the plot — which is highly likely, when it comes to the absurdly “rights”-focused Canadian debate over MAID, particularly when it comes to mental illness. (My basic position remains that very little of this debate should be about “rights” in the first place. You don’t have a “right” to a new hip, a pacemaker or a prosthetic leg — or a merciful death — unless you need one, “need” being define by law and by the medical profession.)