(I)MAID Discuss and analyze: (i) philosophical arguments in favour of limiting access to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) to the existing eligibility criteria for access, which reflects the policy option of continued decriminalization, legalization and regulation: existing eligibility criteria: (i) AGE and CAPACITY: they are 18 years of age or older, and capable of making decisions with respect to their health; (ii) CONDITION: they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition; (iii) VOLUNTARY REQUEST: they have made a voluntary request that is not the result of external pressure; (iv) INFORMED CONSENT: they give informed consent to receive MAID. AND Discuss and analyze ONE of the following: (a) philosophical arguments for reverting to a blanket prohibition which would not allow anyone to access MAID under any circumstances; OR (b) philosophical arguments in favour of the expansion of MAID to otherwise eligible persons who have a mental illness/ mental health condition OR (c) philosophical arguments in favour of the expansion of MAID to otherwise eligible persons who are mature minors. PLUS (iii) Define the social practice being debated. In your answer, (iv) provide analysis of the relevance and significance of the following specific philosophical theories and principles: AUTONOMY, HARM PRINICPLE, PATERNALISM (*NOTE: define, discuss and elaborate on as many types of Paternalism as are relevant and significant), QUALITY OF LIFE [grounded in Utilitarian Consequentialism], SANCTITY of LIFE + WRONGNESS OF KILLING [grounded in Nonconsequentialism], and EQUALITY in understanding the philosophical and policy debates. (v) Make connections between philosophical theories, principles, and arguments, and reasoning of Supreme Court judges (Majority and Dissent and Consensus) in the cases of Rodriguez v. Attorney General of British Columbia, and Carter v. Canada.