The SCC Carter V. Canada (Attorney General)

The concept of autonomy supports capable patients to make their own decisions regarding their care (8). Patient have the “right to decide how one is to live one’s life, in particular how to make critical life-decisions (9)” and one can argue that this right also extends to choosing the manner death (10). This right is also supported by Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (11).” The Trial Judge in the Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2015 case ruled that prohibiting MAID would interfere with a patient’s life and infringe on the liberty and security of that patient (5). The prohibition of MAID interferes with a patient’s life because it may lead some patients to end their life early they are still capable of doing so. Furthermore, prohibiting MAID would interfere with the patient’s ability to “make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care” and prevent the patient from having control over his or her bodily integrity that is free from state interference (5). Therefore, the respect for patient autonomy strongly supports Bill

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

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

2. Describe the key arguments for both sides of the case - especially consider the parties reasons for either changing or preserving the section of the Charter under

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.

Dr. Glucksberg and 'Compassion in Dying' set their case saying that the ban against doctor-assisted suicide was violating the right patients right of due process and placed an unjustified burden on terminally ill patients who required help to stop suffering misery from the

Canada, which began in 2009, Gloria Taylor was a women who was diagnosed with ALS. Her doctors let her know that a month after her diagnoses, she would likely be paralyzed within six months and most likely die within a year (Butler & Tiedemann, 2015). Taylor wanted to challenge the law on assisted suicide because she wanted the option to end her life in the presence of a trained professional before her quality of life would be extremely compromised (Butler & Tiedemann, 2015). Three individual plaintiffs joined Ms. Taylors claim. These individuals included, Dr. William Choichet, who was a physician that was willing to perform assisted suicide in safe circumstances if the laws in Canada were changed (Butler & Tiedemann, 2015). Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson were the other two plaintiffs who joined the claim. These two were the daughter and son-in-law of Kay Carter who was a woman who had suffered from spinal Stenosis. Spinal stenosis is a disease, which causes mobility limitation and pain, while leaving individuals cognitive abilities in tact (Butler & Tiedemann, 2015). Ms. Carter asked her daughter and son-in-law to bring her to an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland where assisted suicide is legal. Both plaintiffs brought Ms. Carter even though they were aware they could face prosecution (Butler & Tiedemann, 2015). If assisted suicide had been legal in Canada at the time of Ms. Carters suffering she would have had the comfort of freely expressing her right to liberty in terms of wanting to end her life while she was still competent to make this decision and not having to travel so far while also putting her family at risk of

To begin, patients can die with dignity. Dying with dignity is the philosophical concept that a terminally ill individual should be allowed to die naturally and comfortably instead of experiencing a life of deep unconsciousness prolonged by mechanical support systems. (Death with Dignity) In 1993, Sue Rodriguez, a sufferer of ALS, believed that the time and manner of her death should not be determined by her illness or by the law. She expressed that it should be legal for a physician to end her life for her at a time she has chosen. (Fenton) Rodriguez took her case to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, she argued that Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide commits an indictable offence, violates her rights in the Charter under Section 7, that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security, 12, that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any

“[t]he court ruled that laws making physician-assisted death illegal violated Canadians’ constitutional rights in cases where an adult clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition." (Larson)

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

The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling concerning physician-assisted dying in the case of Carter vs. Canada answers the following two questions: 1) Does the current law against physician-assisted dying infringe an individual’s right to life, liberty and security and 2) If the law is a violation of this right, is this violation justified under the Charter of Right’s general limitation clause. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on the first question was in the affirmative. The Supreme Court rules that the prohibition of physician assisted dying is void because it deprives a competent adult of assistance when “(1) the person affected clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) the person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition

1) Carter v. Canada is considered one of the most significant recent SCC rulings because it redefines the meaning of life, liberty and security in Section 7 of the Charter. It expands the scope of our liberty to include autonomy and control over our body and how we choose to proceed when given the choice to suffer intolerable pain or to commit premature suicide (Tupman Lionel). The Supreme Court carved out a new path for people suffering from grievous and irremediable illnesses and offered them a third choice. The choice to seek medical assistance to end life when the burden of suffering is so intolerable that death becomes dignified and pleasant alternative.

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.

A retired social worker, Smith, was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 86. He said that he has no regrets but worries about the pain. "Death itself is not a fearful consideration for me," he said. "But the process of dying could be if it were extremely uncomfortable." He is in no haste to die but expects that he will feel severe pain when the cancer reaches its final phases and when it happens; he would want his doctor to be able to prescribe him with a toxic dose of medication that he can use to end his life