Subsequent to an intensive three-year period of reflection, the CMQ is revealing its perspective and conclusions today regarding end-of-life care and euthanasia. The CMQ embraces the point of view of the patient who is confronting imminent and inevitable death. In such a situation, the patient looks to their physician and generally requests that they be able to die without undue suffering and with dignity. Neither surveys, nor attorneys, nor politicians can properly advise the physician and the patient facing this situation. In the majority of cases, the patient and their doctor find the appropriate analgesia that respects the ethical obligation of physicians not to preserve life at any cost, but rather, when the death of a patient appears to be inevitable, to act so that it occurs with dignity and to ensure that the patient obtains the appropriate support and relief.
Russel Ogden has seen enough people end their own lives to convince him that a planned and fully accountable suicide is a right all Canadians should have. This week in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Mr. Ogden and the Farewell Foundation For The Right To Die will be fighting both the provincial and federal governments to make “self-chosen death” a legal option.
Nearly two decades after the country’s highest court ruled against a B.C. woman who wanted to be euthanized, another B.C. woman’s case has laid the groundwork for a challenge to Canada’s assisted-suicide laws. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association – along with a daughter who helped arrange her elderly mother’s death – announced the lawsuit at a news conference in downtown Vancouver Tuesday morning. In a notice of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the parties argued that Criminal Code provisions against physician-assisted death are unconstitutional because they deny individuals the right to control their physical, emotional and psychological dignity.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is awaiting a decision that could fast-track the lawsuit of a dying woman pleading for help to end her life before she gets even sicker. A judge is expected to rule Wednesday on whether Gloria Taylor can fast-track a lawsuit to gain the right to doctor-assisted suicide. The Kelowna resident, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is part of one of two challenges in B.C. to the laws against assistant suicide. The last challenge was 18 years ago, when B.C. woman Sue Rodriguez narrowly lost her bid to end her suffering from the same disease.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association says it wants to challenge Canada's assisted-suicide laws alone. The BCCLA represents four plaintiffs seeking to change Canada's assisted-suicide laws, including a dying woman who won the right to have her trial expedited because her health is failing. Gloria Taylor suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. On Wednesday, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled Taylor's trial should be heard in November because of the woman's rapidly deteriorating condition. A similar lawsuit is simultaneously being brought forward by the Farewell Foundation. The group's co-founder Russell Ogden is lobbying to join the BCCLA's lawsuit if its own challenge is struck down. Ogden argues testimony from his application should be part of the civil liberties association's case because it's unfair to assess the quality of either challenge.
Parichehr Salasel believed that where there was life, there was hope. Two doctors at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre disagreed, saying that it is in the best interests of her husband, Hassan Rasouli, who is in a permanent vegetative state, to be taken off life support and provided with palliative care until his death. The seven-month medical conflict over Mr. Rasouli’s fate ended on Wednesday when Ontario’s top court took Ms. Salasel’s side in a ruling that is expected to reignite for Canadians the emotional issue of how to handle end-of-life decisions and whether extraordinary medical interventions save lives or merely prolong dying.
[...] the Panel was persuaded that the law in Canada [...] should be changed to allow some form of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Putting the philosophical analysis together with the lessons learned from [a] review of the paths taken in other jurisdictions that have moved to more permissive regimes, the Panel considered the options for the design of a permissive regime and suggests the following legal mechanisms for achieving the reform and the core elements of the proposed reform.
The words of a man who died in agonizing pain and those of his wife, who wept helplessly at his bedside for days while his life slowly ebbed, were read into the court record during the emotional opening of a right-to-die case. With a dozen lawyers in attendance, a packed public gallery inside and a crowd of placard-waving protestors opposed to change on the Supreme Court of British Columbia steps outside, lawyer Joseph Arvay started dramatically by reading the affidavits of Peter Fenker, and his wife, Grace.
The author of this article argues that Canada’s current approach to the criminalization of HIV transmission is deeply flawed and cries out for clarification. The article first considers the risk of transmission of HIV under various conditions, as determined by recent scientific studies, and concludes that HIV is not easily transmissible through sexual activity. It next examines several crucial factors that contribute to the significance, or lack of significance, of sexual activity by HIV-positive individuals, concluding that the current law creates a “numbers game” for triers of fact. The article then proceeds to a comparative analysis of other Commonwealth countries, demonstrating that Canada is unique in the scale of its prosecution of HIV transmission, as well its reliance on assault and sexual assault. The article concludes by examining several specific problems with the Cuerrier test, and proposes future directions which the Supreme Court could consider.
Thirteen vials of donated sperm should be divided among two women whose same-sex relationship has fallen apart, says a British Columbia judge who concluded sperm should be treated the same as any other type of property in a spousal dispute. The case involves two women, identified in a court judgment only by their initials, whose eight-year relationship ended in 2006.
The Supreme Court of Canada will go ahead later this year and set a legal framework for when patients in a vegetative state can be withdrawn from life support. The court rejected a request this morning from the family of a severely ill Toronto man, Hassan Rasouli, to withdraw the case from its docket on the grounds that Mr. Rasouli recently passed into a higher degree of consciousness.
In a decision released Friday, Madam Justice Lynn Smith says the Criminal Code provisions “unjustifiably infringe the equality rights” of the plaintiffs in the case, including Gloria Taylor, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Joseph Arvay, who represented Ms. Taylor, said that his client cried with relief on hearing the decision. He said that he does not know what her plans are. Mr. Arvay said he imagined that the government would appeal the ruling, but hoped they would not. A spokesperson for the federal government said the minister needed time to read the extensive ruling, but that they would be reviewing the judgment.
The claim that the legislation infringes Ms. Taylor’s equality rights begins with the fact that the law does not prohibit suicide. However, persons who are physically disabled such that they cannot commit suicide without help are denied that option, because s. 241(b) prohibits assisted suicide. The provisions regarding assisted suicide have a more burdensome effect on persons with physical disabilities than on able-bodied persons, and thereby create, in effect, a distinction based on physical disability. The impact of the distinction is felt particularly acutely by persons such as Ms. Taylor, who are grievously and irremediably ill, physically disabled or soon to become so, mentally competent, and who wish to have some control over their circumstances at the end of their lives. The distinction is discriminatory, under the test explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Withler, because it perpetuates disadvantage.