The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments on the prohibition of doctor-assisted dying this week. Photo: Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press/Files Canada’s highest court will hear legal arguments Wednesday into whether the federal prohibition against assisted suicide should stand. The one-day hearing, scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. ET, comes nearly 21 years to the day the Supreme Court of Canada, in a 5-4 ruling in 1993, narrowly dismissed an appeal by Sue Rodriguez, who was dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease, for doctor-assisted death.
What does the Criminal Code say about euthanasia and assisted suicide?
Under Section 241 of the Criminal Code, anyone who aids or abets a person to commit suicide “is guilty of an indictable offence” punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
What is the Supreme Court being asked to decide?
Whether the criminal ban on assisted suicide violates the section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provides “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof,” whether the federal law should be struck down for all Canadians and whether provinces are constitutionally entitled to enact legislation that allows for physician-assisted dying.
Who is for decriminalizing assisted suicide?
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association on behalf of two now-deceased B.C. women, Gloria Taylor and Kay Carter, is bringing the challenge before the court. “Year after year, poll after poll, Canadians have overwhelmingly stated that they favour a change to the laws,” said litigation director Grace Pastine. The group’s evidentiary record comprises more than 15,000 pages across 52 volumes, as well as affidavits from individuals “who are, or were seriously and incurably ill and suffering against their wishes, and wanted the option of a physician-assisted death so they would not have to suffer cruelly in bodies that were failing them,” Pastine said. The group’s central argument is that the laws are unconstitutional because they deny people the right to have control over choices “that are fundamental to their lives and prevent unnecessary suffering” and restrict the ability of doctors “to deliver compassionate end of life care to incurably ill patients.”
Who is against it?
In the Rodriguez case, the Supreme Court decided the criminal ban on assisted suicide is in place to protect life and that vulnerable individuals would be threatened by any change in the laws. The Attorney General of Canada, in written arguments to the court in Carter vs. Canada, says an “absolute prohibition remains needed today, 21 years later, for the very same fundamental reasons — the protection of life and the protection of vulnerable people.” An absolute prohibition “sends the message that all lives are valued and worthy of protection from those who may subtly encourage vulnerable people to terminate their lives.” The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition says an outright prohibition against assisted suicide remains the norm in almost every jurisdiction in the world and Parliament, and not the courts should decide the matter.
When will the Supreme Court rule in the matter?
Judgments are rendered, on average, six months after the hearing.
More quotes from written arguments submitted to the Supreme Court in advance of Wednesday’s hearing:
“The right to life must include the right to make fundamental personal decisions about one’s own life, including whether or not to end it.” — Canadian Civil Liberties Association
“In deciding this case, this Court must consider how to protect the freedom of conscience of health-care providers who morally object to directly or indirectly killing patients or assisting patients to kill themselves.” — Catholic Civil Rights League.
“As long as such practices remain illegal, the CMA believes that physicians should not participate in medical aid in dying. If the law were to change, the CMA would support its members who elect to follow their conscience.” — Canadian Medical Association.
“The criminal prohibition on assisted suicide deprives many grievously ill individuals of the peace of mind afforded by having choice over the timing and manner of their own death. It forces them to live the remainder of their lives consumed by fear and dread of a protracted death…” — Dying with Dignity Canada.
“Constitutional recognition of a right to assist others to commit suicide would diminish the real autonomy of people with disabilities, seniors and other vulnerable people at risk by empowering doctors to end the lives of patients at a most vulnerable time of their life.” — Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
skirkey@postmedia.com
No comments:
Post a Comment