rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Physician assisted death: Supreme Court rules, faith groups respond

May Court Hospice provides palliative care

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a law that makes it a crime for physicians to assist in the death of individuals who are grievously ill. The court’s unanimous decision pleases many Canadians, alarms others and leaves religious leaders and politicians in a most delicate position. An Angus Reid poll in November 2014 indicted that 80 per cent of respondents in Canada support allowing a doctor, at the request of a competent, fully informed, terminally ill patient, to assist that person to die.

The court has ruled that the existing law leaves people suffering from an irredeemable illness with a cruel choice. "[They] cannot seek a physician’s assistance in dying and may be condemned to a life of severe and intolerable suffering,” the court said. The judges added that the law violates the charter rights and is therefore unconstitutional. As such, the court gave the federal government one year to draft a new law, and if Ottawa does not do so, there will be no law in place to regulate physician-assisted death.

Faith groups have long argued that life is a gift from God and that neither people who are ill nor those around them have the right to decide when life should end. They also warn lawmakers of a "slippery slope," arguing that vulnerable people will come under pressure to choose death rather than burden their loved ones or society at large.

But the trial judge in the initial challenge to the law examined other jurisdictions where assisted death was available and concluded that the risks to vulnerable people were minimal. The Supreme Court judges agreed: "[The evidence] also supports her finding that a properly administered regulatory regime is capable of protecting the vulnerable from abuse or error."

Judges in Canada don't look at laws based on the interpretation of religious texts, but the court in this case obviously considered moral and ethical dimensions. "An individual's response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy," they said. "The prohibition [on physician-assisted death] denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on their liberty."

Various religious groups have responded to the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada expressed "deep" disappointment with the judgment and said that the court had decided that in some circumstances, "the killing of a person will be legal." The Catholic bishops also expressed their dismay, saying that "helping someone to commit suicide is neither an act of justice or mercy, nor it is part of palliative care."

Although the United Church of Canada made no formal statement, Moderator Gary Paterson wrote that "[the law] should change in order to allow physician-assisted dying in circumstances that meet carefully defined criteria.” The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Fred Hilz, announced that his church is appointing a task force to guide its discussions on physician-assisted death.

All of these faith groups stressed the importance of improved palliative care. No doubt the Supreme Court judges would agree, although that was not the focus of the appeal that they heard. Better palliative care will not eliminate the requests for physician-assisted death by some people who are gravely ill, but the consensus is that it makes all the difference in the quality of life during one's final stages.

This piece appeared in a somewhat more abbreviated form on my blog with the United Church Observer on February 12, 2015.

 

 

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.