Adelaide
02-07-2015, 09:32 AM
People with grievous and irremediable medical conditions should have the right to ask a doctor to help them die, Canada's highest court says in a unanimous ruling. The Supreme Court of Canada says a law that makes it illegal for anyone to help people end their own lives should be amended to allow doctors to help in specific situations....
The court has given federal and provincial governments 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling; the ban on doctor-assisted suicide stands until then. If the government doesn't write a new law, the court's exemption for physicians will stand...
All nine justices share the writing credit on the ruling, an unusual action meant to signal particular institutional weight behind the decision.
The one-year delay in implementing the ruling means the ban on doctors assisting in suicides remains in place until then.
Supreme Court says yes to doctor-assisted suicide in specific cases - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-says-yes-to-doctor-assisted-suicide-in-specific-cases-1.2947487)
I have to appreciate that our Supreme Court tends to show an ability to correctly gauge most situations. Unanimous common sense ruling quite frankly. I'm not sure how the government will implement this, or if they'll meet the one year they've been provided but this is finally the right direction. The ruling states physician's are under no obligation to assist someone if they do not want to do so.
Directly from the Supreme Court ruling for Carter v. Canada (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do):
This said, we do not agree that the existential formulation of the right to life requires an absolute prohibition on assistance in dying, or that individuals cannot “waive” their right to life. This would create a “duty to live”, rather than a “right to life”, and would call into question the legality of any consent to the withdrawal or refusal of lifesaving or life-sustaining treatment. The sanctity of life is one of our most fundamental societal values. Section 7 (https://zoupio.lexum.com/calegis/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11-en#!fragment/sec7) is rooted in a profound respect for the value of human life. But s. 7 (https://zoupio.lexum.com/calegis/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11-en#!fragment/sec7) also encompasses life, liberty and security of the person during the passage to death. It is for this reason that the sanctity of life “is no longer seen to require that all human life be preserved at all costs” (Rodriguez,at p. 595, perSopinka J.). And it is for this reason that the law has come to recognize that, in certain circumstances, an individual’s choice about the end of her life is entitled to respect. It is to this fundamental choice that we now turn.
I think that is a brilliant summation on what our rights really entail. I believe that it's incredibly sad that so many people who fought for this have already passed away, some choosing to do so in other countries where it is legal and others without the dignity that they wanted and that our highest court has now thrown their support behind.
The court has given federal and provincial governments 12 months to craft legislation to respond to the ruling; the ban on doctor-assisted suicide stands until then. If the government doesn't write a new law, the court's exemption for physicians will stand...
All nine justices share the writing credit on the ruling, an unusual action meant to signal particular institutional weight behind the decision.
The one-year delay in implementing the ruling means the ban on doctors assisting in suicides remains in place until then.
Supreme Court says yes to doctor-assisted suicide in specific cases - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-says-yes-to-doctor-assisted-suicide-in-specific-cases-1.2947487)
I have to appreciate that our Supreme Court tends to show an ability to correctly gauge most situations. Unanimous common sense ruling quite frankly. I'm not sure how the government will implement this, or if they'll meet the one year they've been provided but this is finally the right direction. The ruling states physician's are under no obligation to assist someone if they do not want to do so.
Directly from the Supreme Court ruling for Carter v. Canada (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do):
This said, we do not agree that the existential formulation of the right to life requires an absolute prohibition on assistance in dying, or that individuals cannot “waive” their right to life. This would create a “duty to live”, rather than a “right to life”, and would call into question the legality of any consent to the withdrawal or refusal of lifesaving or life-sustaining treatment. The sanctity of life is one of our most fundamental societal values. Section 7 (https://zoupio.lexum.com/calegis/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11-en#!fragment/sec7) is rooted in a profound respect for the value of human life. But s. 7 (https://zoupio.lexum.com/calegis/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11-en#!fragment/sec7) also encompasses life, liberty and security of the person during the passage to death. It is for this reason that the sanctity of life “is no longer seen to require that all human life be preserved at all costs” (Rodriguez,at p. 595, perSopinka J.). And it is for this reason that the law has come to recognize that, in certain circumstances, an individual’s choice about the end of her life is entitled to respect. It is to this fundamental choice that we now turn.
I think that is a brilliant summation on what our rights really entail. I believe that it's incredibly sad that so many people who fought for this have already passed away, some choosing to do so in other countries where it is legal and others without the dignity that they wanted and that our highest court has now thrown their support behind.