The Deadly problems with euthanasia Bill C-14

This article was written by Dr Will Johnston and published in the Huffington Post on April 22, 2016.

Dr Will Johnston

Dr Will Johnston

Dr Will Johnston is the Chair of EPC - BC.

It is not surprising that many Canadians are concerned about the dangers of the new assisted suicide and euthanasia bill, C-14.

What is really not credible is how the word-benders who used the Charter "right to life" to legalize the intentional suicide or killing of some patients are now protesting that they have been cheated of total victory. While they were in court, they said that all they wanted was for competent consenting adults who were suffering terribly at the end of life to be able to have a doctor kill them, with no criminal consequences for anyone.

Now they are hopping mad that non-adults and those who are mentally incompetent, those unable to consent, those whose suffering is purely psychological, and those with years to live just might be excluded. They don't have to worry. The same semantic ju-jitsu which delivered the Carter decision to them will have no problem convincing the courts to invite whoever else to the death party.

Link to the full article

Ban against assisted suicide remains the norm

By Hugh Scher, legal counsel - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Hugh Scher

Hugh Scher

The priorities of disabled Canadians include access to quality living conditions, education, health care and employment – not to be granted the right to assisted suicide, Toronto human rights and constitutional lawyer Hugh Scher tells CBC’s Power & Politics

Click Here To Watch the Power & Politics debate following the Supreme Court Hearing On Assisted Suicide 

Scher, a former chairperson of the human rights committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, made the comments in a segment on Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), which was heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Scher appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

“Nobody should be forced to suffer to death or kill themselves, but those should not be the policy choices Canadians are left with,” he said on the CBC program. 
“There isn’t one Supreme Court across the world that recognizes a constitutional right to die. The absolute ban against assisted suicide and euthanasia remains the norm in most of the world, with the exception of seven small jurisdictions.”

The Carter case began with a lawsuit filed by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in 2011, seeking to allow assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances.

Link to the full article

The Law and Physician Assisted Dying

By Professor Tom Koch

Tom Koch

Tom Koch

For most Canadians, the October 15 arguments at the Supreme Court in Ottawa will be about medical “aid in dying,” what the Dutch bluntly but accurately call physician assisted or directed termination. But what is really at stake in Carter et al. versus Attorney General et al is Canadian law itself, the meaning of its guarantees, promises, and injunctions. In effect, lawyers for and against “aid in dying” are asking the Supreme Court’s justices to interpret two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The result will define not simply issues of “assisted dying” but the future of Canadian law and society for years to come.

The Charter’s Section 15 guarantees that: 

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.” Section Seven promises that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination … based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

What does this mean?

In the British Columbia Supreme Court, where the case was first heard in 2012, civil libertarians argued “life liberty and security of person” meant persons should be free to choose the time of their death and the means of their dying. Because physical limits might prevent some from doing so, to not permit the medical termination of the fragile at a time of their choosing is discriminatory, a Section 7 violation.

Link to the full article