Is it just me, or are most Canadians sitting out the current debate over a new federal assisted-dying law? Although there are compassionate voices on all sides of this difficult issue, ordinary Canadians don't seem overly engaged. Most seem to see it as a personal liberty issue: As long as we ensure that heart-broken teenagers can't get a doctor's help to end their misery, or Aunt Millie can't be knocked-off by greedy relatives looking for an inheritance, it's none of our business.This view is reinforced by the fact that suicide was removed from the criminal code in the early 1970s. If someone can legally take their life, then why can't they get assistance from a doctor? As the B.C. Supreme Court judge who ruled in favour of assisted dying wrote in her 2013 decision: “The physician provides the means for the patient to do something which is itself ethically permissible.”Problems arise when you follow this argument to its logical conclusion. How many Canadians have really thought about a system that allows any competent individual to access a physician-assisted death with relatively few restrictions? What do most Canadians think of giving that right to the scared, the lonely or the despondent — anyone who feels their quality of life is poor?But surely the subsequent (2015) Supreme Court of Canada ruling that upheld the B.C. court's decision was about people with a horrible illness on the verge of death?Actually, it wasn't.As the federal panel on the matter pointed out in its recent report: “The Court's declaration did not indicate that the person must be at the end of life, have a terminal diagnosis or be at an advanced stage of decline.”Instead, Canada's top court spoke of those with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” that causes “suffering that is intolerable.”These are not easily defined terms and many believe we should simply let the patient decide. The advocacy group Dying with Dignity Canada, for example, told the federal panel that: “A 'grievous' medical condition is one that results in unbearable suffering. The decision regarding what constitutes such suffering is for the individual to make.”A provincial-territorial panel echoed this sentiment. It recommended against identifying specific medical conditions that would render someone eligible for the procedure. Instead, assisted dying should be available to those with a “serious illness, disease or disability” that, in the patient's opinion, cannot be properly alleviated.Both panels left open the question of whether someone struggling with a serious mental illness should be allowed a doctor's help to die. The federal panel noted a number of advocates came forward to argue that persons with mental illness can also experience intolerable suffering and deserve the right to be able to access assisted death.So the question is clear: Do we accept that the current discussion is entirely about people exercising their individual rights? Do we agree with the BC Humanist Association's presentation to the federal panel that we need a “legal and regulatory framework that grants the right to a physician-assisted death to all Canadians who freely choose it?” Or, do we as a society need to define the circumstances under which we will grant — or withhold — the right to the procedure? If we choose the latter course, then as a society we are effectively putting ourselves in the position of telling people who believe that their life has lost all meaning and value that they are wrong.And who gets to make this final call? Much has been made about the fairness of burdening physicians with the actual act of taking a life. What about the fairness of asking them to be the final arbiter? Saying 'no' to an individual in crisis may be as distressing as saying 'yes.'  So if not a doctor, then who?This is not new territory. As a society there are times when we recognize that someone's life has meaning and value even if they don't believe it themselves. Suicide was not removed from the criminal code because society felt that ending one's own life was a positive thing. It was removed because society felt suicidal individuals needed help, not prison. In fact, other laws mandate police and medical personnel to do everything they can to protect individuals from harming themselves and we direct our healthcare system to support them.Similarly, if we want to limit access to assisted dying, we need to determine the point where we are prepared to impose value and meaning on the life of a person who feels otherwise. Most importantly, we need to think about our collective and individual responsibility to support those who see no hope.It will not be an easy discussion. The starting point is each of us trying to determine our own understanding of the ultimate value and meaning of life, particularly in the face of suffering. The end point will be a law that reflects the type of society we desire.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. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program. John can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.