The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

The United States Bill of Rights came into being as a result of a promise made by the Fathers of Confederation to the states during the struggle for ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88. A great number of the states made as a condition for their ratification, the addition of amendments, which would guarantee citizens protection of their rights against the central government. Thus, we have a rather interesting situation in which the entrenchment of a bill of rights in the American Constitution was done by the virtual demand of the states, they themselves fearing a central government which was not legally constrained and restricted as far as its powers were concerned.

Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial issue both in Canada and countries around the world. In most of the world, assisted suicide is still illegal, but there appears to be some movement towards its legalization. Regardless of this shift towards the possible legalization of assisted suicide, there is still substantial resistance and debate regarding the issue. On one hand, those who support assisted suicide mostly use the ethical argument that everyone should have the right to choose how and when they die and that they should be able to die with dignity. Another factor is the “quality of life” issue, which means a person should no longer have to live, if they feel their life is no longer worth living. On the contrary, the argument against

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

The Canadian Charter of Rights has been entrenched in the Constitution Act of 1982 since 1982 and affected the lives of countless Canadians ever since it was passed, with most if not all of the effects being positive. This can be proven by the fact that the act that the act has only faced two amendments in the 35 years it has been in effect. Furthermore, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has five components; Fundamental Freedoms, Democratic Rights, Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, and Equality Rights. All of these were designed to make sure that Canadians face no discrimination, and are not denied any basic rights. This can be seen by seeing how much the quality of life for Canadians has increased over the time the Charter has been embedded in the Constitution, by how much the Charter actually does protect the rights of Canadians.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms upholds the individual rights of all Canadians. Agree or disagree with the following statement.

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.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the

Three decades ago, honorable Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was establishing the renowned Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the three decades of being established, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has protected the individual rights and freedoms of thousands of Canadians. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become a part of the national identity and has become a big patriotic symbol for the country. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document the truly separates Canada from all the other powerful nations and is really something that Canadian take a pride in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brings up many questions, but the biggest and most common question is How effectively does Canada’s Charter of Rights and

1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.

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.

According to the Criminal Code of Canada, physician-assisted suicide is illegal in Canada. However, due to the changing minds of Canadians and their values over a course of time, Canada created new laws that directed the act of assisted suicide by a physician. However, it is an ongoing debate whether these laws are problematic or beneficial. Canada’s new laws regarding doctor-assisted suicide are effective because patients can die with dignity, there are benefits to the healthcare system and there will be less emotional turmoil for patients and their families.

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

At the heart of the debate of doctor assisted suicide is the supreme court trial of Carter v Canada. This was the catalyst which lead to the national legalization of assisted suicide. One of the major arguments against this law was that of the safeguards and regulations needed to protect Canadians from harm. Proponents against physician assisted suicide believe that any bill that are created for such a cause will have “inadequacy of safeguards and the potential to devalue human life” (Carter v Canada, 344). Thus, leaving those who are pro-assisted suicide require to create guidelines and protections for all parties involved with process. Allowing for there to be proper and adequate safeguards for assisted suicide is of vital importance to this law as it is these safeguards are the foundation of the assisted suicide law.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

Respect for one’s individual autonomy is a hallmark of Canadian liberal democracy, as Downie (2004) notes that countries operating under the common law system have recognized a person’s physical integrity as a fundamental principle for centuries (p. 50). This concern over personal autonomy was a major aspect of the Carter v. Canada case, as one of the plaintiff’s, Gloria Taylor, issued a written statement to the court that read: “What I want is to be able to die in a manner that is consistent with the way that I lived my life. I want to be able to exercise control and die with dignity and with my sense of self and personal integrity intact” (2012, p. 1).