The question then is whether this inequality is discriminatory. I started and ended the posting with a reminder: that these issues might be political, philosophical, religious, and socio-economic, but they are also very personal issues as well. He noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal adopted the constitutional exemption in R. This protection is grounded on a substantial consensus among western countries, medical organizations and our own Law Reform Commission that in order to protect life and those who are vulnerable in society effectively, a prohibition without exception on the giving of assistance to commit suicide is the best approach. This concept of balancing was confirmed in a very recent judgment of this Court. Viewed thus, the objective of the prohibition is not to prohibit what it purports to prohibit, namely assistance in suicide, but to prohibit another crime, murder or other forms of culpable homicide. Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Equality rights -- Discrimination on basis of physical disability -- Terminally ill patient seeking assistance to commit suicide -- Whether Criminal Code provision prohibiting aiding a person to commit suicide inf ringes s.
But England afraid of increased costs due to conflict with Indians established the Proclamation of 173, which. In Seaboyer, the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal endorsed a case-by-case constitutional exemption, involving a determination of whether the former rape-shield provisions of the Criminal Code R. Daigle, -- while keeping in mind that the Charter has established the essentially secular nature of Canadian society and the central place of freedom of conscience in the operation of our institutions. The Charter complainant may be called upon to bear the onus of showing that long-established or prima facie necessary practices do not accord with the principles of fundamental justice. Overall, then, it appears that a blanket prohibition on assisted suicide similar to that in s. Rodriguez set out in McEachern C. The associated offence of attempted suicide has an equally long pedigree in Canada, found in the original Code at s.
Indeed, it is triggered by a substantive criterion, in the form of either terminal illness or acute suffering. Regardless of one's personal views as to whether the distinctions drawn between withdrawal of treatment and palliative care, on the one page 608 hand, and assisted suicide on the other are practically compelling, the fact remains that these distinctions are maintained and can be persuasively defended. I write to you in response to the courts final decision that was rendered on September 30, 1993. That does not mean that these values are absolute. Identical treatment does not necessarily mean equal treatment or lack of discrimination.
Rather, it has come to be understood, at least by some, as encompassing quality of life considerations, and to be subject to certain limitations and qualifications page 596 reflective of personal autonomy and dignity. I add that it is not generally appropriate that the complainant be obliged to negate societal interests at the s. What of the person who takes advantage of another's depressed state to encourage him to commit suicide, for his own financial benefit? Section 241 b has a pressing and substantial legislative objective and meets the proportionality test. This decision was made based on the face that while section 241 b affects the security interest of the appellant, this denial does not apply to the principles of justice. An individual is not a totally independent entity disconnected from the society in which he or she lives. However, after negative public response, the Commission retracted this recommendation in its 1983 Report.
Citing a range of medical association reports and Law Reform Commission reports, the legislative and medical history of s. The exemption would apply during the period that this Court's order would be suspended and thereafter Parliament could only replace the legislation subject to this right. Section 241 b of the Code is constitutional. Dying is an integral part of living and, as a part of life, is entitled to the protection of s. Rather, he turned his attention to s. The obvious response to this concern is that the same dangers are present in any suicide. Section 241 b cannot survive the minimal impairment component of the proportionality test, and therefore I need not proceed to the third component of the proportionality test.
Individuals are not subject to criminal penalty when their omissions cause the death of another. From the review that I have conducted above, I am unable to discern anything approaching unanimity with respect to the issue before us. Where there is discrimination, finally, justifications are to be considered in light of s. Sanctity of life, as we will see, has been understood historically as excluding freedom of choice in the self-infliction of death and certainly in the involvement of others in carrying out that choice. I would therefore allow the appeal, with costs to the appellant against the Attorneys General of British Columbia and Canada, and declare s. Indeed, there is substantial evidence that people in this position may be susceptible to certain types of vulnerability that others are not. Concluding that loss of this right could disadvantage the appellants, Wilson J.
It should consider the question before it from a legal perspective -- Tremblay v. The doctor is therefore not required to make a choice which will result in the patient's death as he would be if he chose to assist a suicide or to perform active euthanasia. Within this range of means it is virtually impossible to know, let alone be sure, which means violate Charter rights the least. However, though finding that the appeal should be dismissed, Hollinrake J. Its main approach, however, is not to punish the discriminator, but rather to provide relief for the victims of discrimination. However, the contrary school of thought has always existed and is premised on notions of both freedom and compassion. The practical objective of s.
The prohibition against assisted suicide serves a similar purpose. Section 15 1 of the Charter can also be applied to grant the same relief at least to handicapped terminally ill patients. In the next posting on this issue, I will discuss some of those cases and the impact they might have on a future Supreme Court of Canada decision. Rodriguez knows of her condition, the trajectory of her illness and the inevitability of how her life will end; her wish is to control the circumstances, timing and manner of her death. In short, although at first sight persons who cannot commit suicide and those who can are given identical treatment under s.
This is precisely the way the majority judgments in Morgentaler treated the issues that arose there; it is page 623 the way I think the Court should proceed in this case. A particular limit will be arbitrary if it bears no relation to, or is inconsistent with, the page 620 objective that lies behind the legislation. Justice Cory ruled that the right to die is as much a protected freedom under section 7 of the Charter as any other part of life. 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. We share the view that s. The person must be given all the necessary information in order for them to be able to make an ethical decision.
She does not wish to die so long as she still has the capacity to enjoy life. I concurred in McLachlin J. If she commits suicide, such physician must furnish a further certificate to the Coroner confirming that, in his or her opinion, the Appellant did not change her mind. This right has an element of personal autonomy, which protects the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to decisions concerning their own body. These societies, including Canada, recognize and generally apply the principle of the sanctity of life subject to narrow exceptions where notions of personal autonomy and dignity must prevail.