The deluge of negative commentary about the federal government's recent legislation on assisted dying has been disappointing. Although I respect the critics of Bill C-14, the way many have characterized the current debate is simply wrong. Too many have tried to present this as a battle between those espousing individual rights and those who favour protecting life at all costs — an outmoded and suspiciously religious concept. Many of the critics tell us that in our rights-based society personal liberty needs to prevail and the current legislation, with all its exceptions, fails to meet the mark. As Chantal Hébert noted in the Toronto Star, through Bill C-14 the right to assisted dying “is grudgingly offered to some but not at all to others.”I recently listened to a radio interview with a representative of a right-to-die organization. Commenting on the legislation, she bemoaned the fact that a large number of Canadians would be denied access to the procedure: minors; those with mental illness; those whose death was not imminent; those who wanted to sign an advanced directive. She presented it like it was a list of people who were ineligible for some kind of government grant rather than not having the opportunity to seek assistance in killing themselves. This is not a battle between personal liberty and some quasi-religious attachment to life with winners and losers — far from it. Underpinning the current debate is an attempt to find a balance between two important and equal values that are crucial to the functioning of our society. The first is the issue of personal autonomy and liberty. Individual rights and freedoms are a fundamental part of Canadian society and it is crucial that we recognize the control that individuals need to have over their own well-being. Canadians should be rightly proud of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But these rights are not absolute. As a society we often place limits on them. Ironically, one example is the right to take your own life. Yes, suicide was removed from the criminal code in the 1970s. Despite this, law enforcement authorities and medical personnel are still compelled to prevent people from harming themselves. In Ontario for example, the Mental Health Act gives police the authority to take a suicidal person into custody to be examined by a physician who may in turn order them to be held against their will for further assessment. If our society is all about rights, then why do we allow this to occur? Because of the second value at play here — our common belief in the sanctity of life. Although this may sound more like a religious term than a legal one, it is in fact a basic principle of law. The Supreme Court of Canada itself, in its February 2015 ruling allowing assisted dying, pointed out that the “sanctity of life is one of our most fundamental values.” As the noted international legal expert John Keown, an expert witness in the lower court case on the issue, put it: “The principle is grounded in an understanding of each human being as having an intrinsic and ineliminable dignity. The essence of the principle is the prohibition on the intentional taking of human life…” This respect for both human rights as well as the sanctity of life is why the vast majority of Canadians can tell pollsters that they favour an assisted dying law while at the same time being rightly outraged at the rash of suicides and attempted suicides in Attawapiskat. It is about finding a way to balance two fundamental values. Although the federal bill is far from perfect, it goes a long way to reflect that balance. Assisted dying is allowed in some circumstances. It is, however, limited to a relatively narrow spectrum of situations. Why? As the backgrounder produced by the federal Department of Justice explained: to affirm the “inherent and equal value of every person's life;” to avoid “encouraging negative perceptions of the quality of life of persons who are elderly, ill or disabled;” and not to undermine “suicide prevention initiatives” or normalize “death as a solution to many forms of suffering.” The debate over assisted dying is far from over. A number of advocacy organizations have begun a strong lobbying effort to see the bill amended. Certain senators have threatened to thwart its passage unless changes are made. The federal justice minister has promised further study aimed at potentially widening the terms of the legislation in the future. In all this noise and activity we cannot forget that the end product needs to reflect the type of society we want. I, for one, want a law that not only confirms individual rights but also reflects our common belief in the value and sanctity of life in even the most dire of circumstances. John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario cabinet minister currently serving as 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. Milloy is the editor of, and a contributor to, Faith and Politics Matters (Novalis, 2015).