“The sanctity of life is one of our most fundamental societal values.” Although these may sound like the words of Pope Benedict or some right wing Conservative backbencher, they actually come from the February Supreme Court Judgement on assisted dying.Laws are a reflection of our society's values. And in the case of assisted dying, it's about two important values coming into conflict. On the one hand, we believe in protecting life even in the most difficult circumstances, including the lives of the profoundly disabled, the infirm or extremely sick.  On the other hand we also value personal autonomy and believe that a person should be free to decide the course of their life with minimal interference.What the Court ruled is that the desire for assisted dying by someone experiencing intolerable suffering due to a “grievous” and incurable medical condition can override our belief in the sanctity of life.  The Court therefore directed Parliament to come up with a new law that acknowledges this right and better reflects the complicated relationship between these two values. What the Court didn't do is tell us what this new law should look like and whether it should also apply in broader circumstances.So under what conditions are we going to allow assisted dying?  Should it only be available to those suffering with a terminal illness? A high profile Private Member's Bill put forward by Conservative MP Steven Fletcher extends the right to anyone who has “an illness, a disease or a disability… that causes physical or psychological suffering” that the person believes cannot be addressed by medical treatment or is “in a state of weakening capacities with no chance of improvement”. Do we want a definition as broad as this? Do we want to go farther?Do we want to leave this as simply a personal decision between a doctor and a patient? If we go that route, what about the physicians who have expressed major concerns about assisting an individual die? And what about those doctors who support it fully? Will they allow a more far-reaching application of the law that widens the practice into areas beyond what was originally intended?We certainly need to look at the European experience.  Written testimony  presented to the Supreme Court from a leading legal scholar from Belgium described the situation there. He cited numerous examples where the practice was carried out on individuals who were not facing immediate suffering (including “out of fear of future pain”). He concluded that what started out as a practice that was to be only allowed in the most extraordinary circumstances had evolved into something that many Belgians now claim “as a right”.Reference was also made in his testimony to the situation in the Netherlands, particularly the so-called Gronigen Protocol.  This medical guideline allows parents to consent to the euthanization of a newborn with certain severe medical conditions, including those who may survive but face a life of sustained suffering.Yes, we need a national conversation. A conversation that is going to be tough, complicated, emotional and very messy.  At its core, it's a conversation about how we collectively think about the meaning, value and purpose of life as well as the limits of personal autonomy.  In short, what type of society do we want?And yet after a month of electioneering – nothing. I am sure that every political party was pleased when Peter MacKay punted the issue to an expert panel that would not report until after the election. I can certainly confirm from personal experience that no politician likes messy discussions, particularly in the run up to a vote.But try as we might, it's a conversation that we can't avoid. And everyone needs to be at the table: those who have seen loved ones suffer and understand the peace that assisted dying can bring; experts who can speak about needed safeguards to protect the vulnerable; as well as those troubled by the trend that this ruling could represent. This includes many disabled Canadians as well as a number of leading medical experts in end-of-life care who have expressed serious concerns.And let's not forget to include those who approach these issues from a faith perspective. Although it is true that some faiths don't want the law to be changed at all (an untenable position in the face of the Court ruling), they have also been struggling with some of the underlying issues for centuries and can certainly add to the broader discussion.During the 1993 campaign Kim Campbell said that “an election is no time to discuss serious issues”.  Although she claims her words were taken out context, politicians have gone to great lengths since then to characterize their campaigns as 'national conversations about important issues.' Clearly they have fallen down on the job when it comes to this important matter. But just remember, they can only avoid the issue as long as voters fail to raise it.John Milloy is a former Ontario cabinet minister who served as MPP for Kitchener Centre from 2003 to 2014.  Prior to that, he worked on Parliament Hill, including five years in the office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He is currently the Co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and Assistant Professor of Public Ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural Practitioner in Residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department.  John can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.