Justin Trudeau promised Canadians that he would make the Liberal Party the party of transparency and open government, fairness for the middle class, and respect for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-14 on physician assisted dying places a big question mark over this pledge.The Charter had been emerging as the flagship of Trudeau's leadership-style. He is an articulate champion of Charter rights and he's been willing to make some difficult decisions to demonstrate his commitment to it.For example, before the last election, he declared that all Liberal candidates must agree to respect the Party's pro-choice stance on abortion. Any votes on this issue would be whipped and caucus members would toe the Party line, even if they were personally opposed to abortion.Trudeau was harshly criticized for this, but he was standing firm, he said, because the Liberal Party represents the Charter, and that is what the Charter demands. That commitment now appears to be wavering.The Carter decision redefines the Supreme Court's views on physician assisted dying. It not only affirms assisted dying for terminal, physical illnesses that involve grievous and irremediable suffering, but opens the door to mental illnesses, as well. For degenerative mental illnesses, such as dementia, the ruling looks to advance consent.By contrast, C-14 retreats from this more inclusive view and restricts assisted dying to physical illnesses that cause unbearable pain and where death is “reasonably foreseeable.” Advance consent is effectively ruled out.According to the government, these compromises are necessary to “strike a balance” between competing views on these difficult issues. What is not explained is why a government that claims to stand for the Charter suddenly feels obliged to accommodate views that deny Charter rights—especially since the highest court in the land has affirmed these rights. What grounds are there for treating the right to die with dignity differently from abortion?Pro-life advocates see the fetus as a separate entity whose life is put at risk by legalized abortion. In this view, fetuses are vulnerable persons who need public protection. Pro-choice advocates see the fetus (in early stages) as a member of the woman's body. They insist on a woman's right to manage her own health and security.There is no final answer here on who is right or wrong. Rather, there is a philosophical disagreement about how to view the emergence of life. That decision can have a huge impact on a woman's life, liberty and security. When Trudeau defends a woman's right to control over her body, he is siding with those who believe that the fairest way to manage this uncertainty is to allow each individual to choose for herself.The Carter decision can be viewed in a similar light. The right to control over one's body not only includes the right to seek medical assistance to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but also to seek medical assistance to terminate a life wracked with grievous and irremediable suffering. As with abortion, disagreement over key terms looms large here.The main arguments against Carter focus on the risks around error and abuse. Mental illnesses, for example, are nebulous and uncertain. There is much we don't know about them, say opponents, so how can we be sure when a person is or isn't competent to make such a decision?Advance consent should also be ruled out, they say, because a person suffering from dementia may be unable to register a change of mind. Finally, there are claims that assisted dying will make it too easy to pressure the vulnerable into ending their lives.If these arguments sound convincing to ordinary Canadians, it is important to see why. They suggest that clear standards for consent exist, but that experts simply don't know how to test for them in the context of mental illness. There is therefore a high likelihood of getting things wrong—and when the decision involves a life, the stakes can't get any higher.This is very misleading. Consent is a complex idea that is often layered, ambiguous and controversial. It is the subject of much dispute in everything from contracting to democratic elections. People regularly disagree on what consent involves—often profoundly.Seeking a level of clarity on assisted dying that isn't attainable elsewhere thus sets the bar unrealistically high. Opponents who insist that error and abuse are likely are really trading on the false premise that we have a level of clarity and agreement on consent that we do not.In fact, disagreement on the conditions of consent is endemic, so uncertainty is unavoidable. The real question is how much of it a government should be willing to live with. The liberal answer is: more than opponents are conceding.Looked at this way, many experts agree that reliable systems can be devised to protect the vulnerable against error and abuse. This was also the conclusion of the Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying.The Trudeau government, however, has sided with opponents of these rights. Apparently, it has been persuaded that it is better to deny legions of people their Charter rights and consign them to a life of suffering than to live with the risk of error.It is a remarkably conservative approach to what may be the most important liberal rights issue of our day. The government has promised to hold further discussions on these questions. We can only hope they will lead to a more progressive law.Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. He is currently the Government of Ontario's principal advisor on its Open Dialogue Initiative. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at:[email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan