{"id":29060,"date":"2014-10-16T22:18:54","date_gmt":"2014-10-16T14:18:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=29060"},"modified":"2025-03-08T22:48:02","modified_gmt":"2025-03-09T03:48:02","slug":"does-ban-on-assisted-suicide-protect-canadian-rights-or-violate-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2014\/10\/16\/does-ban-on-assisted-suicide-protect-canadian-rights-or-violate-them\/","title":{"rendered":"Does ban on assisted suicide protect Canadian rights, or violate them?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"ValeStock<\/a>
ValeStock \/ Shutterstock.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

OTTAWA\u2014The so-called \u201cright to die\u201d was back on Canada\u2019s conscience Wednesday as the Supreme Court confronted the question of whether a ban on assisted suicide protects or violates the fundamental rights of Canadians.<\/p>\n

Those arguing for a change in the law say public opinion has shifted dramatically in the more than 20 years since Sue Rodriguez became a household name by taking her fight for a medically assisted death to the top court.<\/p>\n

In 1993, the nine-justice panel was split; Wednesday\u2019s submissions made it clear that the issue remains as divisive as ever for medical practitioners, religious groups, and even advocates for the rights of the disabled.<\/p>\n

Two different groups representing Canadians with disabilities appeared before the court, arguing opposite sides of the case.<\/p>\n

The justices were sensitive to the resulting tension, as well as the notion that any one group\u2014including the government\u2014can claim to speak for what anyone wants or needs.<\/p>\n

During submissions from one of the government lawyers, both Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Rosie Abella interrupted to take issue with the language being used to describe the people at the heart of the case.<\/p>\n

buy motilium online cdhc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/motilium.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

To say all disabled people \u201cneed protection, a leg up, different treatment\u2014to treat them all the same\u2014seems to be rather a stereotypical thing,\u201d McLachlin said.<\/p>\n

The justices are considering whether the ban violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in part because while able-bodied Canadians can take their own lives, someone physically incapable of doing so would need help\u2014and the helper would face legal repercussions.<\/p>\n

Some disabled people adapt better than others and simply wouldn\u2019t seek to end their own lives, given the right, acknowledged Joseph Arvay, the lead lawyer for the appellants and himself a paraplegic.<\/p>\n

\u201cI say\u2014and with the greatest respect I say\u2014it is wrong, indeed it is arrogant of those disabled people to impose their views of what suffering is acceptable and tolerable for others,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cSuffering is a very personal, subjective and contextual concept.\u201d<\/p>\n

At one point, government lawyer Donnaree Nygard argued that even the most seriously disabled people have \u201coptions\u201d for ending their lives.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are options for ending life open to everyone, even the most severely disabled\u2014and that is not to say that they are easy or comfortable options,\u201d Nygard said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe refusal of nutrition and hydration is neither easy or comfortable, but the so-called usual means of suicide are also not easy or comfortable…. What they want is not access to assistance for the usual means of suicide, what they want is\u2014in their own words\u2014a better choice.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Rosalie Abella interjected: \u201cThey want access to the right that persons who are not disabled have to decide when to end their suffering,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey want access to a medicalized suicide,\u201d Nygard replied.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause they can\u2019t do it the way somebody who is not disabled can,\u201d Abella said.<\/p>\n

The panel also raised the issue of who ought to have the right to an assisted death. Justice Michael Moldaver wondered about diseases which may not have a cure now, but could in the future. Justice Rosalie Abella asked whether someone\u2019s right ought to be limited by the illness itself.<\/p>\n

\u201cAssisted dying should only be allowed in the most serious cases and not just because somebody wants to; it\u2019s because their condition is not going to get any better,\u201d Arvay said.<\/p>\n

Though the plaintiffs argue it would be up to Parliament to determine the extent of a law allowing assisted death, they provided some conditions: the person would have to be a competent adult, acting voluntarily, and with an incurable medical condition that causes profound suffering.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s up to the courts to compel them to act, Arvay said.<\/p>\n

In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that where assisted death is concerned, certain rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are trumped by the principles of fundamental justice.<\/p>\n

Since then, several private member\u2019s bills on assisted suicide have come before Parliament but have failed to pass. Quebec adopted right-to-die legislation earlier this year.<\/p>\n

Despite that, little else has changed, the government argued. There is no new case law, no new legal perspectives, nor any new facts, said Robert Frater, the government\u2019s lead lawyer.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur position is straightforward: Rodriguez is still good law,\u201d he told the court.<\/p>\n

\u201cGiven the concerns about abuse and the great difficulty in creating appropriate safeguards, the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide is not arbitrary or unfair,\u201d the court\u2019s decision at the time said.<\/p>\n

In the original B.C. lower court ruling that prompted the Supreme Court case, the judge explored a number of ways in which things have changed since Rodriguez\u2014including the availability of care for patients nearing death.<\/p>\n

But that can\u2019t be a consideration here, Frater said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be an indictment of the health system if you decided that because palliation was not available to everyone, you had to find a right to assisted suicide,\u201d Frater said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s a legal system gone awry in my submission.<\/p>\n

buy toradol online cdhc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/toradol.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

\u201d<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Some of what was said Wednesday as the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments about the prohibition on assisted suicide:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe problem with the present situation right now is we have the proverbial back alleys where people have to go out and buy these turkey bags that they fill with helium in order to die, or they have to order drugs from Thailand or Mexico, which if they don\u2019t work they leave them brain damaged and worse off. What we want is to have this be as a purely medicalized sort of procedure.\u201d\u2014Joseph Arvay, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cThere has not only been a fundamental change in the parameters of the debate since the Rodriguez case, but it is our clients that revived a debate that\u2019s been dormant for 20 years, and what a debate it has been. We say this is the case that quite simply needed to be heard, whatever the outcome\u2014and, of course, we hope we will have persuaded you that there is only one right outcome.\u201d\u2014Arvay.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cOur position is straightforward: Rodriguez is still good law. The twin objectives of the legislation … are as vital today as they were 21 years ago.\u201d\u2014Robert Frater, lawyer for the Attorney General of Canada.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cIn my respectful submission, it would be an indictment of the health system if you decided that because palliation was not available to everyone you had to find a right to assisted suicide. That\u2019s a legal system gone awry in my submission.\u201d\u2014Frater.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cOnce it\u2019s accepted that an element of personal autonomy includes the right to decide how and when to end your own life, the right necessarily includes the right to seek assistance. And why do I say that? Because when you look at this issue in Morgentaler, the right to abortion recognized there included the right to assistance in obtaining that abortion. In Insite, the right to a safe injection site recognized the right to assistance in that regard.\u201d\u2014Christopher Bredt, Canadian Civil Liberties Association.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cOur laws and our health care system are committed to protecting life. Striking down the ban on assisted suicide will erode this basic trust.\u201d\u2014Statement from Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cSince euthanasia and assisted dying are illegal, we continue to advise our members not to participate in these activities. Ultimately, however, we recognize that this is a societal issue and that it is society that will ultimately decide what will take place.<\/p>\n

buy topamax online cdhc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/png\/topamax.html<\/a> no prescription pharmacy <\/div>\n

\u201d Statement from Dr. Chris Simpson, president of the Canadian Medical Association.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OTTAWA\u2014The so-called \u201cright to die\u201d was back on Canada\u2019s conscience Wednesday as the Supreme Court confronted the question of whether …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":29088,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ca","category-health","mauthors-stephanie-levitz","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29060","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29060"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29060\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":287789,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29060\/revisions\/287789"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29088"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}