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.
Marcia Angell was an editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world for two decades. She currently gives monthly lectures on ethics to faculty at Harvard Medical School. And she served on a panel that gave advice on medical issues to the White House. But Dr. Angell’s credentials were challenged, Wednesday, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia when a lawyer for the federal Department of Justice tried to prevent her affidavit from being entered in a case concerning physician-assisted suicide.
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.