Assisted Suicide in Canada.

[dre]

I am really dumbstruck at your lack of understanding. The ruling says the LAW violates the charter so the ruling IS based on the LAW. If there is no law there is no charter issue and no basis for further court challenges. It is a very simple concept to understand. Why is it so difficult for you?

You certainly are dumbstruck I wont argue with you there. Seems like you just aren't reading the posts and haven't read the ruling.

The court ruled on two issues... that PAS must be allowed, and when it CAN be allowed. This is very clear in the ruling if you bothered to read it.

So if the government passes legislation that conflicts with the ruling then someone with standing can challenge it before the courts, and Carter becomes a precedent.

And that's exactly whats going to happen. Wait and see.

Trying reading this again, really slowly and carefully.

The February 2015 Supreme Court decision^[19] in Carter v Canada (AG) limits physician-assisted suicides to “a competent adult person who clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition".

[TimG]

The court ruled on two issues... that PAS must be allowed, and when it CAN be allowed. This is very clear in the ruling if you bothered to read it.

The court expressed its opinion how how the government could balance the competing issues. It cannot stop the government from repealing the law entirely nor can it stop the government from passing a law that is less restrictive. This is a basic concept understood by anyone familiar with how the division of power between the courts and the legislature works.

What you are are doing is reading more meaning into the words of the ruling than is there.

Edited March 8, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

The court expressed its opinion how how the government could balance the competing issues. It cannot stop the government from repealing the law entirely nor can it stop the government from passing a law that is less restrictive. This is a basic concept understood by anyone familiar with how the division of power between the courts and the legislature works.

What you are are doing is reading more meaning into the words of the ruling than is there.

I'm reading the exact literal meaning of the words.

And no... its CANT stop the government from passing a less restrictive laws, but it can be used as precedent when those laws are challenged, and when that happens the court (being at the top of the judicial pyramid) will throw that law out as well based on its previous ruling which is now case-law.

[TimG]

And no... its CANT stop the government from passing a less restrictive laws, but it can be used as precedent when those laws are challenged, and when that happens the court

If there is no law there is no basis for a challenge. And if there is a less restrictive law it could only be struck down if it violated the charter rights of someone. It is not clear who could claim their rights are violated by a law that is not restrictive enough and even if it is struck down the legislature could repeal the law and the ruling would be moot. Edited March 8, 2016 by TimG

[square]

The government can write any law they want, but if it goes beyond those limits it wont survive a challenge.

Your wrong. Parliament can go beyond those limits, parliament can increase the rights for Canadians if the will of parliament is to increase the rights for Canadians.

[dre]

If there is no law there is no basis for a challenge.

That's not necessarily true either.

[dre]

Your wrong. Parliament can go beyond those limits, parliament can increase the rights for Canadians if the will of parliament is to increase the rights for Canadians.

Yup they can do whatever they want, but the court can strike those laws down if a case winds up in their docket.

[TimG]

That's not necessarily true either.

Please give an example of a charter ruling where the court ruled on something without reference to a piece of legislation that violated the charter.

[square]

Yup they can do whatever they want, but the court can strike those laws down if a case winds up in their docket.

You're wrong again. The Supreme Court of Canada has the mandate to strike down laws if legislation violates peoples charter right. If parliament goes beyond the limits and increases the rights the Supreme Court doesn't have the mandate to strike down laws because peoples charter right haven't been violated.

[Guest]

Thats fine, but your opinion is in a vacuum that does not take into account the courts ruling or how the medical system works

It seems irrelevant because we know for a fact thats not how its going to work..

I know. Just because something's right doesn't mean it's going to happen. When does it?

[square]

Assisted suicide legislation will be released tomorrow.

[CITIZEN_2015]

It was released today and I am very glad that we are moving towards freedom of choice and a true democracy where citizens can decide for themselves how to live their lives (for which more steps have to be taken in future) or when to end their lives under certain circumstances if they choose to do so. Today is a good day for all citizens in a significant way. Now that the nation voted overwhelmingly to rid of the former ideological dictatorship (Harper regime) every day we take true steps towards real democracy in this country. Congratulations to all citizens.

[SpankyMcFarland]

It sounds like sensible legislation, a cautious start in a new area. More radical proposals might not have gained enough support from MPs to make it through Parliament. Let's see how we do with this first.

[Big Guy]

I feel that this legislation has some problems and I am glad it will be discussed and open to a few amendments.

The 15 day "cool off" period I feel is too long and subjects people to unneeded pain.

I think it is a good start. It is always easier to present legislation that "hangs back" and is open to tightening rather than propse something vary controversial and have to take away from it.

I am glad to see it finally in place.

This may also give the Senate an opportunity to re-establish its place as a "sober second thought".

[Guest]

I feel that this legislation has some problems and I am glad it will be discussed and open to a few amendments.

The 15 day "cool off" period I feel is too long and subjects people to unneeded pain.

Really. The idea that you give someone the right to die because they are in pain, and dying anyway, and then tell them to wait a fortnight, (just so you can be sure that pain is really, really, bad enough) seems ridiculous to me. Utterly.

[Smallc]

Really. The idea that you give someone the right to die because they are in pain, and dying anyway, and then tell them to wait a fortnight, (just so you can be sure that pain is really, really, bad enough) seems ridiculous to me. Utterly.

Yeah, I'm totally against this idea. Something like 24 - 48 hours would be far more reasonable.

[Guest]

Yeah, I'm totally against this idea. Something like 24 - 48 hours would be far more reasonable.

It is a lot more reasonable, but really, if a person goes through the entire process willingly, why do they need a cooling off period? I think it's more for us, than them.

[Smallc]

It is a lot more reasonable, but really, if a person goes through the entire process willingly, why do they need a cooling off period? I think it's more for us, than them.

Oh I agree with you. I'm just saying that if we're going to have a such a cooling off period, at least make it a reasonable amount of time.

[TimG]

The 15 day "cool off" period I feel is too long and subjects people to unneeded pain.

This is the least of the problems with the bill. First it seems to require that someone being dying which is completely unreasonable. Many grievous and irremediable conditions are not ultimately fatal and these people should not be denied access to the service. Second, the bill has no provision for advanced directives which completely ignores an important part of the SCC ruling which said that forcing people to kill themselves while they are still able because they are afraid of living in misery is a violation of their right to life. Edited April 15, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

This is the least of the problems with the bill. First it seems to require that someone being dying which is completely unreasonable. Many grievous and irremediable conditions are not ultimately fatal and these people should not be denied access to the service. Second, the bill has no provision for advanced directives which completely ignores an important part of the SCC ruling which said that forcing people to kill themselves while they are still able because they are afraid of living in misery is a violation of their right to life.

Totally agree with this.

[dre]

The bill is pretty good, and more or less what I knew we would get. It IS a limited implementation and the courts may force the government to broaden it once there's some cases.

But it was clear from the outset that this is what we would start with.

[Big Guy]

It is a good start. I agree with the amendments as suggested by the MLW senate. Let us hope our government does the same.

[ColdComfort]

Most Canadians support some form of assisted suicide. One of the things that is strange to me is that how moral opinions change so quickly and then these new opinions are held with absolute certainty. In the case of assisted suicide or suicide in the face of painful deaths think of the following. Only in recent generations have we had the knowledge to control pain. In the US civil war amputations were done without anesthesia. In WW1 those who were wounded in the abdomen were left to die as no antibiotics existed. For all those centuries and millennia before our times people died in agonizing pain from illnesses that there were no treatments for and pain management was non-existence. Think for a moment of someone, living in about 1850, whose appendix bursts. Hours and days of terrible pain followed by certain death.

People had the means to either kill themselves or have others do the job for them but they didn't. In fact, until recent years such a notion would have been regarded as bizarre. What's changed.? Do people really believe that somehow we have become so enlightened that what was a moral certainty just a few short years ago can now be rejected as clearly wrong?

[eyeball]

People had the means to either kill themselves or have others do the job for them but they didn't. In fact, until recent years such a notion would have been regarded as bizarre.

It's just not true, human beings have quite likely been practicing euthanasia ever since there have been human beings.

Euthanasia (from Greek: εὐθανασία; "good death": εὖ, eu; "well" or "good" – θάνατος, thanatos; "death") is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.[1]

wiki

What's changed.? Do people really believe that somehow we have become so enlightened that what was a moral certainty just a few short years ago can now be rejected as clearly wrong?

Little if anything has changed other than a requirement to have a government's permission. How enlightened or moral the requirement is that an individual have a government's permission to do just about anything has been occupying most of humanity's time since day one as well.

[ColdComfort]

Any evidence to support that eyeball?