Reviewing The Supreme Court Of Canada Case

This case is the case of Rodriguez v. British Columbia in 1993. Sue Rodriguez had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; more commonly know as Lou Gehrig’s disease, in 1991. Rodriguez was aware that this disease would eventually lead to her not being able to breathe on her own, move on her own, or even eat without a feeding tube. Rodriguez had the attitude that she wanted to enjoy as much of life as possible, but when the time came that she could no longer enjoy life, she wanted the assistance of a doctor to end her life. In her own words, she asked, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”(Windsor Sun). In the opinion of Rodriguez, she should have the choice to end her life, and that if she could not do the act without assistance, it should be legal for a physician to help her. She ended up losing her case in a Supreme Court appeal. The decision stated, “No consensus can be found in favour of the decriminalization of assisted suicide. To the extent that there is consensus, human life must be respected.” (Windsor

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

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.

In concurrence with King, requiring professors in Christian Charter schools to refrain from wearing non-Christian articles of faith is not a reasonable infringement of Section 2(a) of the Charter. The Oakes test was conducted to deduce that the Charter infringement is not justifiable in a free and democratic society. The first step of the Oakes test is to determine if the infringement is “prescribed by law”. A common law rule or regulation, in addition to legislation can constitute a limit “prescribed by law” (Sharpe & Roach, 2013, p66).

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

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

In a more recent court decision, Carter v. Canada was a game-changer for the movement to grant Canadians the right to die with dignity. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the high court struck down on the federal prohibition on doctor-assisted dying. It was argued that the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the law regarding doctor assisted dying was created because of Carter v. Canada, the immediate and known risks associated with doctor assisted dying are being addressed and managed by establishing a strict but fair criteria for determining who can access doctor assisted dying and the safeguards that are in place to safely administer it. To meet the criteria, he/she must be a competent adult, clearly consent to the termination of life, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and experience enduring suffering that is intolerable in the circumstances of his or her condition. Doctors are required to use their knowledge, skill and judgement to assess an individual’s aptness for doctor assisted death, in conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria. We must recognize that within these criteria are sub-criteria’s and there are many steps to this procedure.

The Canadian Medical Association defines physician-assisted death (PAD) as “[when] a physician knowingly and intentionally provides a person with the knowledge and/or means required to end their own lives…”. (A, p29) In Canada, suicide has been legal for years, but euthanasia and physician-assisted death have only recently been decriminalized in a court of law. However, until 2016, PAD can still be charged as “culpable homicide” under section 222 and 229 of the Criminal Code of Canada. (B,K) The specifics of the debate on physician-assisted death in Canada has, over the decades, not significantly changed, but instead Canadians’ opinions have been shifted since information from Belgium, Columbia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland,

Firstly, a man's father had not received doctor assisted suicide because he did not reach requirements even though he had prostate cancer. He needed a approval from 2 healthcare providers. One of them had approved and the other denied because the healthcare worker assumed that he wasn't in distress. As time passed, 2 weeks later the man's father died in a home that cared for the sick. Furthermore, even though the man had prostate cancer and he was going to die, he could not get doctor assisted suicide because it was assumed that he was not in distress. Secondly, a person with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can only be granted to get doctor assisted suicide. A doctor in Toronto said that just because of this law only 1 out of 10 requests for medically assisted dying are granted. Additionally, the doctor had also stated that there are many reasons why a patient can not be granted doctor assisted suicide and the most common one is that their condition might not be too severe and their death may not be foreseeable. Many kill themselves because they can not bear the pain that others can not see. Thirdly, the mentally ill are not being included for doctor assisted suicide. There are many organizations that fight for this right but the main one is "Dying with Dignity". This organization argues that the bill passed by Canada called C-14 discludes the mentally ill. Additionally, this is a violation to charter of rights. People have the right to make decisions about treatment according to Ontario's Health Care Consent Act. Although, they can only make these decisions if they are capable which means if they understand the information about the treatments and the consequences of refusing the treatment. Moreover, research states that the general public and health workers do not wish that the law includes these

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

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

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.

Applicable cases include Rodriguez (1993), and Bodkin Adams (1957). “Since the Rodriguez case was decided, important developments in other jurisdictions appear to demonstrate that it is possible to permit physician assisted suicide under strict legal controls, and to do so without the widespread abuses feared by those who support an absolute prohibition on the practice.”

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.