The Supreme Court’s Feb 6 2015 ruling revisited the controversial and emotional issue of assisted suicide, reconsidering its 1993 ruling in the Sue Rodriguez case.

The Supreme Court’s Feb 6 2015 ruling revisited the controversial and emotional issue of assisted suicide, reconsidering its 1993 ruling in the Sue Rodriguez case. It struck down sections of the criminal code that said assisting in suicide was an offence
Photo Credit: Laura Payton/CBC

Canada history: Feb 6, 2015 Supreme Court historic ruling on assisted suicide

It was, and remains, a controversial fight, and decision.

In a landmark and unamimous ruling on this date, February 6, 2015, Canada’s highest court released its decision on the issue of assisted suicide.

The court did not decide that assisted suicide, usually thought to mean physician –assisted suicide, was legal, rather that the sections of law that made it illegal were unconstitutional.

It ruled that section 14 and paragraph 241(b) of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional because they prohibit physicians from assisting in the consensual death of another person.

What the court reasoned was that the rules were forcing some people to commit suicide prematurely because they thought that when suffering became intolerable, they would be unable to take their lives.

Supporters rally outside the Supreme Court in October 2014 on the first day of hearings into whether Canadians should have the right to seek help to end their lives. They got what they wanted Friday with a unanimous ruling.
Supporters rally outside the Supreme Court in October 2014 on the first day of hearings into whether Canadians should have the right to seek help to end their lives. They got what they wanted Friday with a unanimous ruling. © Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press

“It is a crime in Canada to assist another person in ending her own life.  As a result, people who are grievously and irremediably ill cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering.  A person facing this prospect has two options:  she can take her own life prematurely, often by violent or dangerous means, or she can suffer until she dies from natural causes.  The choice is cruel.”  SCC- Feb 6 2015 Carter vs Canada

Section 14 says no-one is entitled to give their consent to die, and that the criminal liability for causing the death of a person remains in spite of the person giving their consent to die.

One of the purposes of Section 14 was to prevent a person – charged with murder from claiming as a defence the fact that the other person consented to die.

Paragraph 241(b) says that anyone who assists in another’s suicide even attempted, is guilty of a criminal offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Assistance can include providing someone the means of ending their life, such as a tool or a deadly drug, or even information about other means of ending their life.

The SCC said the prohibition on assisted suicide was too broad, and prevented competent adults  in personal decisions about their health in connection with irremediable medical conditions causing enduring  and intolerable suffering.

Lee Carter and husband Hollis Johnson react to the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that was initiated by her mother, Kay Carter, who suffered from a degenerative disease and went to Switzerland to end her life. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press
Feb 6,2015: Lee Carter and husband Hollis Johnson react to the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that was initiated by her mother, Kay Carter, who suffered from a degenerative disease and went to Switzerland to end her life. © Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press

Para (85) “A law that is drawn broadly to target conduct that bears no relation to its purpose “in order to make enforcement more practical” may therefore be overbroad (see Bedford, at para. 113).  The question is not whether Parliament has chosen the least restrictive means, but whether the chosen means infringe life, liberty or security of the person in a way that has no connection with the mischief contemplated by the legislature.  The focus is not on broad social impacts, but on the impact of the measure on the individuals whose life, liberty or security of the person is trammelled.

 (86) Applying this approach, we conclude that the prohibition on assisted dying is overbroad  “  SCC Feb 6 2015 Carter vs Canada

The court ruling said that the laws must allow for some form of doctor assisted dying, and told the government it must come up with such new laws within one year. This was later extended.

A new law did come into effect on June 17,2016, which many criticized as still being too restrictive, excluding for example allowing for advanced consent from those with degenerative disorders.

Dignitas reports 5 Canadians went to Switzerland in 2016 for assisted dying, with critics saying the Canadian law on doctor-assisted death is too restrictive.
Dignitas reports 5 Canadians went to Switzerland in 2016 for assisted dying, with critics saying the Canadian law on doctor-assisted death is too restrictive. © Chris Kreussling

Dignitas, the Swiss organization that offers  suicide assistance to those with chronic, degenerative or terminal illness said 131 Canadians became members in 2016.  It says 11 Canadians came to them in 2014, seven in 2015, and with the new law in place, five Canadians still travelled to Switzerland for assisted death feeling that new Canadian law did not leave them options at home.

The new law is also now being challenged in court as still being too narrow.

Additional information- sources

Categories: Health, Politics, Society
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

For reasons beyond our control, and for an undetermined period of time, our comment section is now closed. However, our social networks remain open to your contributions.