Canadian Supreme Court Rules Ban On Assisted Suicide Unconstitutional

BarbaraHudson writes with word that Canada's Supreme Court has issued a strong statement in defense of Canadians' right to choose assisted suicide: [A] judgment, which is unsigned to reflect the unanimous institutional weight of the court, says the current ban on assisted suicide infringes on all three of the life, liberty and security of person provisions in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness. The court agreed with the trial judge "that a permissive regime with properly designed and administered safeguards was capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error. While there are risks, to be sure, a carefully designed and managed system is capable of adequately addressing them." Parliament has one year to enact new legislation modifying the Criminal Code to conform to the judgment.

Comments

The problem

[Vintermann]

So, a carefully designed and managed system is capable of determining whether your life is not worth living? Presumably they will also find that some people are wrong in wanting to die, otherwise they wouldn't need a system at all.

Which lives are worth living or not sounds to me like the kind of question it's maybe not right to set an official answer to.

I have sympathy with people who feel life isn't worth living. But I wish they would not demand that others validate their choice by killing them.

Re:The problem

[Attila Dimedici]

Maybe you should look at places that have already implemented such systems. Repeated studies have shown that in the Netherlands, where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for some time now, medical professionals report that they do not wait for the patient to decide that they want to die. They just use their own judgment as to whether that person's life is still worth living. As far as I have been able to find, there have been no prosecutions for such acts, even though they are technically illegal. In other words, once it becomes legal for medical professionals to assist someone in taking their own life, medical professionals begin killing people who have not asked for such "help".

The General Attorney of Canada missed the point

[AchilleTalon]

I believe the General Attorney of Canada missed the point in this case and did not defend properly his position. If you can easily think anyone has the right to decide for his own life, the point is about asking someone else to kill him. The argument revolved around the right for an individual to put an end to his days, and this has been declared unconstitutional to force him to live. However, what about giving permission to someone to kill someone else? This is the entire point at my humble opinion and this is where there will be abuses. It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.

Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point

[thegarbz]

It will become very hard to sue someone who have killed someone else in the conditions described by the Court to prove the killed one has never asked to be killed.

Maybe you should read the rest of the summary before assuming they missed the point. Specifically where they say: " a carefully designed and managed system is capable of adequately addressing them."

Courts to prove the killed one never asked to be killed? We have legal systems that can cover all manners of a person's life including granting a person to the right to his own identity. Is it so inconceivable that a system is designed that has effectively a statistically insignificant error and abuse rate?

Re:The General Attorney of Canada missed the point

[AchilleTalon]

Read my comments to others above. I have answered this question in detail. A criminal prosectution cannot be initiated by an individual. This is initiated by the general attorney or a representative. This attorney is due to the government, the same entity that is managing the healthcare system and paying for it, and has an interest to reduce the burden of the healthcare system on the budget.

You are talking theory, I am talking practice. Did you ever try to sue a doctor who has kill your mother without her consent? I did and the police never investigated the case because it is medical matter and the general attorney never sue anyone. And all this before this Supreme court decision while the doctors' actions were criminal.

Re:The Black Pill

[Nemyst]

Medical oversight also ensures, as much as possible, that there are no treatments remaining that may be able to recover sufficient quality of life to avert the need for suicide. If the go-to response to suicidal tendencies was to go see a doctor for support, we may see a sharp decline in mental health-related suicides.

Re:The Black Pill

[bmo]

So, end your days when you are still capable to decide. Opening the door to let someone decide for you because you have lost this capability and you believe today these individuals should be terminated is not the way to do it. You believe you have a right to decide. Yes, of course as long as you are capable to decide. Beside that, no one has the right to kill someone else, be he a doctor (m.d.).

Oh please.

Durable Powers of Attorney for healthcare have been around for ages now, and they are crucial if you don't want to suffer stuffed with medical equipment that will only ensure that your life is as painful as possible for your remaining days or hours.

My SO was the DPoA for her ex. She got a phone call last October and said that Eric was in ICU and told me she was his DPoA. His mental state had changed and he was no longer "there" to make decisions for himself. I could have been a dick and said "he's not your responsibility anymore" especially since there was an alternate. But no, I said "You do what you have to do. Do what's right by Eric."

He had gone in for chemotherapy. But then things started going badly very quickly and the healthcare professionals were putting out fires one after another. Eric had been intubated as an emergency measure because his body couldn't keep his airway open. He was also restrained to keep from semi-consciously reflexively trying to yank out the tubes. He was one of those people that stuff like that scared the shit out of him.

The intubation could have kept Eric alive indefinitely were it not for his entire body failing because of the cancer. Keeping him intubated was just delaying the inevitable.

So my SO helped him end his life by having him disconnected after his ex-wife (the alternate DPoA and still his best friend) flew in from upstate NY. Make no mistake, everyone knew that disconnecting him was killing him by many people's definitions and this required the approval of the nurse on duty, two doctors, and one of the DPoAs. He lived for hours after, so she stayed by his side, read poetry, and sang to him and said goodbye. Eric's greatest fear was that he would die in pain and alone tied to a machine (he didn't have any family here). Because he had someone to make the crucial decisions for him and be there for him, he didn't die that way.

I learned a few things over those days.

I learned that I needed my own DPoA, and I knew I found someone who would do the right thing if I needed it.

Assissted suicide would be similar. It wouldn't just be /one doctor/ alone making the decision for you if you were unable - it would be two doctors, and your DPoA at least. It would simply be an extension of existing DPoA laws.

And btw, your last thing: American insurance companies make the decisions to kill people every day by refusing to cover drugs or drag their feet covering valid treatments. So bringing up the "BIG SCARY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KILL YOU WHEN THEY HAVE A BUDGET SHORTFALL" is totally disingenuous, intellectually bankrupt, and stupid.

--
BMO