JT to Whip Assisted Suicide Vote

Big Guy · February 22, 2016

Approx 4,000 Canadians a year kill themselves. It is the seventh most common cause of death for men and tenth for women.

It appears obvious that those who are able bodied are fairly efficient in the process. This legislation would allow the handicapped, those without the physical ability to commit suicide, to satisfy their wishes.

Why should the handicapped not have the same rights as the able bodied?

dre · February 22, 2016

This is not about the minimum requirements set out by the SCC. This is about what the government should do. That said, given the general tendency of the SCC to expand "rights" to absurd levels it is quite likely that 'the desires of a competent individual must be respected' requirement will eventually be imposed.

Again, you are not familiar with the ruling. It doesn't just provide minimum requirements it places limits on what they government can do.

Any legislation will be narrow in scope or the courts will strike it down.

The_Squid · February 22, 2016

Again, you are not familiar with the ruling. It doesn't just provide minimum requirements it places limits on what they government can do.

Any legislation will be narrow in scope or the courts will strike it down.

Even if the courts didn't strike it down, the gov't is not going to expand the scope of the legislation to be even more controversial than it will be already.

That just wouldn't make sense.

TimG · February 22, 2016

Again, you are not familiar with the ruling. It doesn't just provide minimum requirements it places limits on what they government can do.

The courts cannot require the government to outlaw something.

The only thing it can do is specify when something can't be outlawed.

Any legislation will be narrow in scope or the courts will strike it down.

If the government does not pass any legislation there is nothing the courts can do. Edited February 22, 2016 by TimG

TimG · February 22, 2016

Why should the handicapped not have the same rights as the able bodied?

Why should the handicapped get more rights than the able bodied? Committing suicide by oneself is messy, traumatic to bystanders and not necessarily effective. The able bodied should be entitled to same access to services that ensure a dignified and certain death. Edited February 22, 2016 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · February 22, 2016

The courts cannot require the government to outlaw something.

The only thing it can do is specify when something can't be outlawed.

If the government does not pass any legislation there is nothing the courts can do.

If the government doesn't come up with new legislation then the current court finding will stand as it is.

Boges · February 22, 2016

Why should the handicapped get more rights than the able bodied? Committing suicide by oneself is messy, traumatic to bystanders and not necessarily effective. The able bodied should be entitled to same access to services that ensure a dignified and certain death.

So why not take it one step further an allow for suicide drugs to be obtained via prescription? Or even over the counter.

TimG · February 22, 2016

If the government doesn't come up with new legislation then the current court finding will stand as it is.

The current ruling strikes down the law forbidding assisted suicide. If it is not replaced then it will no longer be illegal to assist in a suicide. The caveats mentioned in the ruling are irrelevant if this happens.

You need to learn how our system works. The courts do NOT make laws. The courts cannot re-write laws. They only strike down laws which are unconstitutional. If the government chooses not to replace them we have no law and that is what happened with abortion.

Edited February 22, 2016 by TimG

TimG · February 22, 2016

So why not take it one step further an allow for suicide drugs to be obtained via prescription? Or even over the counter.

Making people go though an application process and seek counselling is a reasonable limit on freedom of choice that will help discourage some people from making bad decisions. Simply telling people that they do not qualify because of some arbitrary criteria dreamed up by a bureaucrat is not a reasonable limit.

On Guard for Thee · February 22, 2016

The current ruling strikes down the law forbidding assisted suicide. If it is not replaced then it will no longer be illegal to assist in a suicide. The caveats mentioned in the ruling are irrelevant if this happens.

You need to learn how our system works. The courts do NOT make laws. The courts cannot re-write laws. They only rule on laws which are unconstitutional.

Which is what I just pointed out to you.

On Guard for Thee · February 22, 2016

The current ruling strikes down the law forbidding assisted suicide. If it is not replaced then it will no longer be illegal to assist in a suicide. The caveats mentioned in the ruling are irrelevant if this happens.

You need to learn how our system works. The courts do NOT make laws. The courts cannot re-write laws. They only strike down laws which are unconstitutional. If the government chooses not to replace them we have no law and that is what happened with abortion.

Perhaps you need to learn how our system works. If the government fails to provide new legislation by the June deadline, the criteria in the previous ruling will apply.

SunnyWays · February 22, 2016

It is ultimately a question of values. I happen to place a high value on people having the freedom to make their own choices even if they are bad choices. Others will disagree. My biggest fear is the legislation will be shaped by people who oppose the right of people to make their own choices and end up offering no improvement over the existing regime.

I think some legislation that makes it easier for people with clear-cut life-ending conditions to die with some dignity at a time of their choosing is a good improvement over the status quo. Look at all those cancer patients or Lou Gehrig's disease. Making it "easier" for them is a good first step. We don't need the perfect answer - we just need progress.

Boges · February 22, 2016

Making people go though an application process and seek counselling is a reasonable limit on freedom of choice that will help discourage some people from making bad decisions. Simply telling people that they do not qualify because of some arbitrary criteria dreamed up by a bureaucrat is not a reasonable limit.

So instead, no criteria.

cybercoma · February 23, 2016

Making people go though an application process and seek counselling is a reasonable limit on freedom of choice that will help discourage some people from making bad decisions. Simply telling people that they do not qualify because of some arbitrary criteria dreamed up by a bureaucrat is not a reasonable limit.

When you start talking "reasonable limits" these need to be codified by laws. That's why his shouldn't just expire to a point of lawlessness or wildly inconsistent care across the country. A law is needed to set these limits and considerations out.

cybercoma · February 23, 2016

Perhaps you need to learn how our system works. If the government fails to provide new legislation by the June deadline, the criteria in the previous ruling will apply.

Not exactly. The law will be overturned and there will be nothing in the books to bring the cases to trial. Edited February 23, 2016 by cybercoma

On Guard for Thee · February 23, 2016

Not exactly. The law will be overturned and there will be nothing in the books to bring the cases to trial.

I don't think so. If the gov. does not deliver, the 2015 Carter v Canada will remain as law and the the criteria described therein will apply.

cybercoma · February 23, 2016

The decision doesn't become a law. The decision was used to interpret a piece of legislation that expires. Without that piece of legislation, there can be no trials for that "crime" because it is no longer a crime.

TimG · February 23, 2016

The decision doesn't become a law. The decision was used to interpret a piece of legislation that expires. Without that piece of legislation, there can be no trials for that "crime" because it is no longer a crime.

I just read the judgment itself. It appears the law was 'suspended' rather than 'struck down' so if the government does nothing, nothing changes. But, as you said, it will be litigated again if the government does nothing.

On Guard for Thee · February 23, 2016

The decision doesn't become a law. The decision was used to interpret a piece of legislation that expires. Without that piece of legislation, there can be no trials for that "crime" because it is no longer a crime.

You are correct that the decision doesn't automatically become law, so therefore the overall ban would still stand, but doctors would still be allowed to aid dying patients within the guidelines set out. What would likely happen if parliament provides no new law is that Carter decision would be codified.

dre · February 23, 2016

The decision doesn't become a law. The decision was used to interpret a piece of legislation that expires. Without that piece of legislation, there can be no trials for that "crime" because it is no longer a crime.

The restrictions in the ruling are still binding on the government and its employees and physicians operating under the Canada Health Act. And if the government doesnt provide guidelines for physicians then medical associations and licensing authorities will.

And even though assisted suicide might be legal no doctor could be the actual "button presser" because 1st degree murder is still a criminal act.

There isnt going to be any free for all. If the federal government does nothing assisted suicide by doctor will be legal in Quebec but in other provinces people seeking that remedy would have to go to the courts. Canadian physicians will abide by the restrictions in the ruling, and the only reason Quebec's assisted suicide legislation was upheld by the court was because it did as well.

square · February 23, 2016

FYI the Supreme Court of Canada can't write laws, only take down bad laws.

dre · February 24, 2016

FYI the Supreme Court of Canada can't write laws, only take down bad laws.

That's just flat out untrue. Supreme court decisions establish principles and precedents that are adopted by the entire Canadian legal/judicial system.

There are two kinds of laws in Canada. There are statutes (legislation) and caselaw...

Legal principles enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions that are derived from the application of particular areas of law to the facts of individual cases.

Every bit of the recent assisted suicide decision is now Canadian law enforceable through the courts. For example... If BC fails to establish laws that establish physician assisted suicide, then someone seeking that remedy can bring a case to the superior court, which can order the government to comply. The government can appeal that decision but they wont win because the recent SCOC decision will be enforced by the courts. If the appellate process goes beyond the next few levels then it ends up... guess where? The SCOC!

On Guard for Thee · February 24, 2016

That's just flat out untrue. Supreme court decisions establish principles and precedents that are adopted by the entire Canadian legal/judicial system.

There are two kinds of laws in Canada. There are statutes (legislation) and caselaw...

Every bit of the recent assisted suicide decision is now Canadian law enforceable through the courts. For example... If BC fails to establish laws that establish physician assisted suicide, then someone seeking that remedy can bring a case to the superior court, which can order the government to comply. The government can appeal that decision but they wont win because the recent SCOC decision will be enforced by the courts. If the appellate process goes beyond the next few levels then it ends up... guess where? The SCOC!

Well done. Hopefully your effort will clear up the confusion.

The_Squid · February 24, 2016

That's just flat out untrue. Supreme court decisions establish principles and precedents that are adopted by the entire Canadian legal/judicial system.

There are two kinds of laws in Canada. There are statutes (legislation) and caselaw...

Every bit of the recent assisted suicide decision is now Canadian law enforceable through the courts. For example... If BC fails to establish laws that establish physician assisted suicide, then someone seeking that remedy can bring a case to the superior court, which can order the government to comply. The government can appeal that decision but they wont win because the recent SCOC decision will be enforced by the courts. If the appellate process goes beyond the next few levels then it ends up... guess where? The SCOC!

Well done. Hopefully your effort will clear up the confusion.

No, no, no...

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. It can strike down bad laws, which is what it did in tghis case. You guys are dead wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada

Caselaw are not separate laws.... they are interpretation/precedent of legislation (laws).

I'm a little dissapointed how little my fellow MLW forum members actually know about how legislation and the courts work in Canada.

Edited February 24, 2016 by The_Squid

The_Squid · February 24, 2016

The courts are the interpreters and arbitrators of Canadian law. The courts do not actually make law; that is, they do not have the power to pass legislation. The legislative branch of government (that is, the federal Parliament and provincial/territorial legislatures) performs this function. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce laws. The executive branch of government, with its bureaucracies and police forces, performs the role of enforcement. Rather, the courts’ role is to interpret the laws passed by the legislature, arbitrate disputes between parties over the application of law, and direct the executive on the proper enforcement of the law.

http://mapleleafweb.com/features/supreme-court-canada-role-history-and-operation#supreme