A lawyer fighting to have the Supreme Court change Canadian law on doctor-assisted suicide argued today that there's little evidence a change in the law would result in a rush of people asking to end their lives.
"Nobody wants to die if living is better," said Joseph Arvay, who represents Canadians who wanted the right to ask a doctor to help them die.
Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson, the two lead plaintiffs in the landmark death with dignity lawsuit, appear on Parliament Hill the day before the Supreme Court of Canada hears the case. (Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)
Arvay told the court that his clients want the law changed to allow competent adults with irreversible medical conditions, and who are so disabled that they can't end their own lives, to ask a doctor to assist them in doing it.
That's ordinarily someone who can't move their arms or may not be able to swallow, he said, though he told the court that it would be up to Parliament to set the exact conditions under which a physician could help someone die.
The court last considered the issue in 1993 when it ruled that where assisted death is concerned, certain rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are trumped by the principles of fundamental justice.
Twenty years later, right-to-die advocates say the legal and moral landscape in Canada has changed, and the laws need to change with it.
Arvay argued his clients seek only to allow physician-assisted dying, not suicide assisted by others, because doctors want their patients to live, not die.
"We know that physicians will be reluctant gatekeepers and only agree to it as a last resort," Arvay said.
Sheila Tucker, who also represented the appellants, compared the desire for doctor-assisted suicide to a patient asking for their ventilator to be removed. Those patients may be disabled and may be depressed, she said, but it's a request society honours.
Tucker also disputed the notion that legalizing physician-assisted death would start down a slippery slope. The Supreme Court's 1993 decision against Sue Rodriguez's request to die came when the world was uncertain whether that would be the case, she said, but evidence from the European countries that allow assisted suicide show otherwise.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association launched what's become known as the "right to die with dignity" lawsuit in 2011 after B.C.'s Gloria Taylor set about ending her life following a diagnosis of Lou Gehrig's disease.
In June 2012, the B.C. Supreme Court agreed that existing laws did deny Taylor the right to control her own life, and gave the court a year to write new ones.
At the same time, they gave her an exemption so she could get help ending her own life.
Taylor died before that could happen and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The argument that assisted suicide prohibitions violate the charter rests on two sections: Section 7, which sets out the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and Section 15, which grants equality rights.
It's an argument that has been tried before when Rodriguez argued existing laws violated her charter rights.
Rodriguez also had Lou Gehrig's disease, formally known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, and wished to end her life, famously saying, "Whose body is this? Who owns my life?"
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that while the laws did violate her rights, they were overridden by the principles of fundamental justice.
More than 20 years later, the government is arguing that nothing has changed, in spite of the fact that the issue has been debated several times in Parliament.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Assisted suicide arguments ‎heard before Supreme Court
Dengan url
http://pentingsehat.blogspot.com/2014/10/assisted-suicide-arguments-aheard.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Assisted suicide arguments ‎heard before Supreme Court
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Assisted suicide arguments ‎heard before Supreme Court
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar