Carter V. Canada

Physician assisted suicide was brought to mainstream attention in the 1990’s due to Dr. Kevorkian’s “suicide machine," who claims to have assisted over 100 suicide deaths of terminally ill patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Dickinson, p. 8). In the early 1990’s, for the first time in United States history the issue was brought to the voting polls in California, Washington, and Oregon (Dickinson, p. 9). The bill was passed in Oregon; legally allowing physicians to facilitate death of the terminally ill, but voters fails to pass the bill in Washington and California (Dickinson, p. 9). In 2008 voters in Washington State passed the Washington Death with Dignity Act (Dickinson, p. 277). Today

Suicide is one person’s personal decision; physician-assisted suicide is a patient who is not capable of carrying the task out themselves asking a physician for access to lethal medication. What people may fail to see however is that the physician is not the only healthcare personnel involved; it may include, but is not limited to, a physician, nurse, and pharmacist. This may conflict with the healthcare worker’s own morals and there are cases in which the patient suffers from depression, or the patient is not receiving proper palliative care. Allowing physician-assisted suicide causes the physician to become entangled in an ethical and moral discrepancy and has too many other issues surrounding it for it to be legal.

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is still under scrutiny for a number of reasons. “In spring, 1996, the Ninth and Second Circuits were the first circuit courts in the country to find a constitutional prohibition against laws which make physician-assisted suicide a crime” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). New York was one of the states that followed this prohibition. Eventually, The Ninth and Second Circuit, “allow physician-assisted suicide while attempting to protect individuals from unacceptable harms, such as involuntary euthanasia” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). An assumption can be made, that euthanasia involves a licensed physician to play an active role in this partaking, and it’s where the patient prepares to die at.

Many consider suicide primarily because they are convinced they are burdens on their families and society. Therefore, if assisting suicide for those with terminal illness is legalizied , the so called right to die is very likely in practice to become a “duty to die”. Many consider the law to be the teacher of what is right and proper, and such a codification would be manipulated by the healthcare industry, and by those who regard life as worthless

S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and began this case as they do in all Due-Process cases by examining the nation's history, legal traditions and practices. (Casey, 505 at U. S. 833; Cruzan at 497 U. S. 261 and Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977). Anglo-American common law has punished or disapproved of assisting suicide for seven centuries and rendering such assistance is a crime in almost every state; such prohibitions have never contained exceptions for those who were near death; the prohibitions in recent years were reexamined and, for the most part reaffirmed in a number of states; and the President signed the Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, which prohibits the use of federal funds in support of physician-assisted suicide. (521 at U. S. 702). It has always been a crime in the State of Washington for an individual to knowingly cause or aide another person to attempt suicide. (§ 9A.26.060(1). The Court held that § 9A.26.060(1) ban on assisted suicide was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and did not result in any fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. (521 at U. S. 702). Although many liberties that are protected by the Due Process Clause revolve around personal autonomy, it does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected. Id. The Court also held in order for Washington's ban to be constitutional, it had

Only one fifth of doctors in the Michigan study said they support a ban on assisted suicide.” Vice chair of the American Medical Association, Dr. Thomas Reardon says, “We believe the US supreme court will recognize and honor our ethical code and refuse to declare a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide.” The organizations council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs consistently condemns this practice. “Some suggest that doctors should become more knowledgeable on pain management and suffering, and explain different therapies to help patients improve. Opponents of the Death with Dignity Act claim that the act’s definition of a terminal illness is “unconstitutionally” vague. The opponents also claim that the act violates the first amendment. However, the DWDA is a “ Legitimate Policy Choice that does not violate any constitutional or statutory requirements.” Physician Assisted death that follow the act include terminal sedation, withholding/withdrawing life sustaining treatments or large amounts of pain medication that will lead to

People base euthanasia and physician assisted suicide on a moral and legal stand point. A health care physicians obligation is to provide support to their patients and to the families throughout treatment and death. Autonomous individuals should be free to decide their own fate when an important life choice concerns a private matter, and when the individual making that choice is near death and suffering without relief, then the state should not interfere unless it can prove that interference is necessary to protect vulnerable third parties (Schafer). People should have the right to request that their life be terminated through medical methods.

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

The Suprement Court of Canada applied the Oakes test to determine whether the infringement can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The SCC judges have looked on two components of the Oakes test including the rational connection and the minimal impairment. The government easily passed the rational connection test since the court clearly accepted the fact that the prohibition of assistant suicide under s.241 and s.14 of the criminal code are logically connected with the objective because the prohibitions exist in order to protect the vulnerability of life(Carter v. Canada, 2015). However, the government has failed the minimal impairment test of the Oakes test. The court considered several arguments concerning these principles. The court first considered the objective of this prohibition where the prohibition against the assistant suicide is to protect the vulnerable from ending their lives in times of weakness(Carter v. Canada, 2015).

The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.

Doctor assisted suicide is a topic that has recently become a much larger debated issue than before. A timeline put together by Michael Manning and Ian Dowbigging shows that prior to Christianity, doctor assisted suicide was something that was tolerated, and was not heavily questioned (2). Yet, in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas had made a statement about suicide as well as doctor assisted suicide, and his words shaped the Catholic teaching on suicide into what they teach today. Beginning in the 17th century, Common Law tradition frowned upon suicide, as well as assisting in suicide, and the colonies had adopted the Common Law principles. (2) In 1828, New York passed a law completely outlawing the assistance of suicide, and made it to where whomever assisted in the suicide could be tried for murder. In 1976, California became the first state to allow patients to withdrawal themselves from life saving medicines, and this Natural Death Act was seen as a gateway to assisted suicide. (3-7) As controversy about California 's Natural Death Act increased, Pope John Paul II released a statement in 1980 which opposed to killing someone out of mercy, but allowed the increased use of painkillers (8). Although, in 1994 Oregon passed their Death with Dignity act, and with it came incredible amounts of backlash. Yet, in 2008 Washington state passed the same act to legalize doctor assisted suicide. (10-12)

In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which exempted, “from civil or criminal liability physicians who, in compliance with specific safeguards, dispense or prescribe (but not administer) a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of the terminally ill patient.” Oregon, to this day, remains the only state within the Union to allow physician-assisted suicide. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that, although there was no constitutionally protected right to physician-assisted suicide, states have permitted to pass laws allowing it. Thus, the issue of euthanasia remains widely open to philosophical, political, legal, and ethical challenges.

In the United States today, there is a considerable amount of debate of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Many oppose physician-assisted suicide because they view it to be morally and ethically wrong. Similarly, many support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide because they believe human beings have the right to determine when and how they die. Personally, I believe human beings have the right to determine when they die and that the government should not keep individuals who are in extreme pain and only have a few months to live from ending their life with dignity. Through this paper, I am going to explore the many sides of physician-assisted suicide.