The House of Commons was right last week to reject the key Senate amendment to the assisted-dying bill. You don't even have to believe that an unelected body has no business trying to change such an important bill: In this case, the senators simply got it wrong.There is nothing perfect about Bill C-14 legalizing assisted dying. Like many Canadians I wish the issue had never arisen but I recognize that the courts forced the government's hand. The result was legislation allowing those with a “serious and incurable illness, disease or disability” to seek assistance in ending their life if they are experiencing intolerable suffering and their “natural death has become reasonably foreseeable.”The Senate tried to remove the end of life requirement from the bill. As the law leaves it up to individuals to determine whether their suffering has become intolerable, the change would have opened the procedure to those who felt that they couldn't go on despite having many years left to live. As the minister of justice explained to the House of Commons, through the Senate amendment, “a soldier with post-traumatic stress disorder, a young person who suffered a spinal cord injury in an accident, or a survivor whose mind is haunted by memories of sexual abuse” could potentially become eligible for assisted dying— all real examples from other jurisdictions with broader definitions.Why is this wrong? Because it doesn't reflect Canadian values.Canadians find the idea of suicide tragic.  Not only do we mandate police and medical professionals to prevent someone from taking their own lives but we also undertake huge prevention campaigns to send the powerful message that life is worth living — that society cares. As a society our message to those in distress should not be that we have expanded the eligibility criteria to access assisted dying. It should be one of hope.Then there is our belief in the value of life, no matter the circumstances. As a society we devote millions of dollars and volunteer hours to support the aged, the infirmed and the disabled — many of whom face a daily struggle to simply perform the most basic activities of life.As a caring society that prides itself on our commitment to equality, it goes against all that we stand for to suggest, as many advocates of assisted dying have done, that people in decline should be able to access assisted death in order to avoid the indignity of wearing adult diapers or sitting in a corner and drooling.No wonder the voices of Canadians with disabilities — including many who are incontinent and do not have full control of their bodies — have been united in calling for this law to be narrow in scope. They are simply not prepared to have their lives portrayed as being of lesser value.As Catherine Frazee, one of Canada's leading voices of the physically disabled, wrote in a passionate essay on the subject: “When physical dependence and limitation are accepted uncritically as reasons to die, disability prejudice is elevated to the level of public policy. A great many people with disabilities, myself included, require supports of the most intimate kind in order to move through and participate in the world. We are bathed by workers' hands, lifted onto bedpans, hooked up to tubes, clothed with diapers and hoisted into wheelchairs as routine features of our daily lives… we do so, with our dignity intact and our quality of life undiminished.”Finally, it is important to address the argument made by many senators that because the Supreme Court ruling didn't limit assisted dying to those at the end of their lives, the bill needed to be changed. The relationship between the courts and Parliament is not that simple. Judges are not in the habit of dictating legislative wording to Parliament even when they find a law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has long left it up to Parliament to remedy the situation as it sees fit as long as the outcome meets the constitutional threshold. Past rulings have recognized the right of Parliament to “build upon” court decisions and not be bound by “slavish conformity” to a particular judicial ruling.I am not sure that Canadians realize the seriousness of what we have done as a nation through the passage of this new law. This is not about giving Canadians the legal right to commit suicide. Attempted suicide has been technically legal since the 1970s.This is about the state sanctioning suicide. Moreover, not only are we supporting the individual's decision to end his or her life: We are also asking medical professionals to assist in the act, and establishing and funding an infrastructure to support the entire process. When you look at it from that perspective, I think most Canadians would prefer that assisted dying occur only in the most limited 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).