Summary - article \"Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), Supreme Court of Canada\" - PDF

Preview

Summary

...

Description

PPA301: Case Analysis Charter v. Canada On appeal in this case: In the Charter v. Canada case, the corresponding sections 241(b) and Section 14 are challenged. The court found S.241(b) of the criminal code, anyone who aids a person in committing suicide commits and indictable offense, and S.14, no person many consent to death being inflicted on them, violates S.7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. The objective of S.241(b) and S.14, combined, prohibits physician-assisted dying. The judge considered the vulnerabilities of those who cannot speak on their own behalf, the consequences of legalizing physician assisted suicide and the consequences continuous prohibition. There are many controversial facts surrounding deregulating physician assisted deaths. Many in society view physician assisted death as ethically immoral because of the idea of ending someone’s life. On the other side of this ethical argument, physician assisted dying is ethically moral because it is wicked let someone live in intolerable pain; their sanctity of life is compromised. Religiously, physician assisted death is ethically immoral; the idea of choosing to end someone’s life or ending choosing to end your own life is the idea of ending one’s life because they are not valuable. Religiously, suicide is an unacceptable idea of death. Lastly, the idea of legalizing physician assisted death leads developing numerous more prohibitions surrounding assisted dying. The need for further writes of regulations will be needed to protect individuals in society, as well as prevent cases of immoral assisted deaths and murders. Section 7 of the Charter guarantees fundamental justices: the right to life, liberty, and security of persons. The judge found that the prohibition on physician assisted dying violates S.7 of the Charter. First the prohibition deprives individuals of autonomy and the rights to liberty. The prohibition denies people, in a situation of intolerable pain, the right to make their own decisions that concern their own body and medical care. Second, the prohibiting violates security of the person. By prohibiting physician assisted suicide, those who seek such assistance, because of intolerable pain, is left enduring the pain and medical costs until death, therefore infringing on their security of the person. Lastly, the prohibition severely breaches the right to life, in both direct and indirect ways. Directly infringes persons’ right to life by allowing the suffering from painful diseases, or paralysis, to continue. Those who want to make their own decision of ending their life, will bring them happiness, as it decreases their pain or suffering. The prohibition indirectly imposes death, or increases risk of death, on a person because individuals fear the probation will affect the future. The probation forces individuals to take their own lives prematurely before the pain becomes insufferable. Section 1 of the Charter guarantees the rights and freedoms of the individual to reasonable limits. The charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in subject only to such reasonable limits in a democratic society. The infringement of section 7 was not justified under section 1 because the prohibition is not proportionate to the reasonableness of the legislature. The conclusion found in the first case functions as a base for the conclusion of this case; because both cases are similar, the foundation is kept in tack; therefore, it is unfair and unjust to find the infringement under S.1 of the charter without revisiting the case of Rodriguez

Absolute prohibition on physician assisted dying is rationally connected to the goal of protecting vulnerability in times of weakness; thus prohibiting an activity that poses certain risks is a rational method of avoiding the risks

S. 241(b) and S.14 of the Criminal Code infringes individuals to their right of life, liberty and security of the person Constitutional law - Division of powers: provisions prohibiting physician- assisted dying - Charter of rights: Right to life, liberty and security of person; fundamental justice o Claims: prohibiting physician assisted dying infringes s.7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -

S. 241(b) of the criminal code: anyone who aids a person in committing suicide commits an indictable offense S. 14: no person many consent to death being inflicted on them

I believe that the courts made the right conclusion in accordance to both claims of infringements. The judge found that the prohibition of physician assisted death violates Section 7 of the charter. Prohibiting those who are in excruciating pain from assisted suicide is a violation of one’s rights and sanity of life. The security of the person restricts an individual’s right to make decisions about the individual’s body and section 241(b) constitutes a limit on personal autonomy. A person’s autonomy is an important concept and the ban on physician-assisted death imposes a limit on an individual for controlling the end of his or her life. The principle of autonomy gives individuals rights to end their life. The principle of autonomy gives the individual the right ultimate personal liberty. Autonomy, gives individuals freedom from external control therefore, by legalizing physician assisted deaths, individual are allowed to make the decision on how their life will end, and evidently leadings to happiness.

3. Administrative law is based on the purposes of maintaining and legalizing government activity, and implemented laws are fair to all individuals. In this Charter v. Canada case, the court deferred the re- write of the legislature to parliament and provincial legislature; this is an illustration of legalizing government action. A major principle of administration law is to ensure that the actions and decisions of government are authorized by parliament or by provincial legislature. The courts made a ruling and implemented a constitutional change of the legislature, therefore the rewrite of the legislature needs authorization from parliament. The legislature affects all citizen. Part of administration law based on fair and equality to all citizens; citizens who are affected by unlawful acts of government officials must have

Archbishop Collins of Toronto spoke out against assisted suicide. Archbishop argues that it is not never justified for doctors to kill. Some parliamentary recommendations include: forcing doctors to refer people to physicians willing to help end their life to minors and the mentally ill, pre-schedule the date of one’s death “Religious discrimination” archbishop’s main concern of these recommendations - People start believing that they have no value in their lives - Value comes from who we are/ within rather than what we can do - Once society makes people worthy of what they do, people are being treated as objects - Destructive implications of these legal changes - Mission: respect the sanctity of human life; protect those who re too vulnerable to act;

The case of physician assisted death is relevant to administrative law because it deals directly and indirectly with all individuals in society, the prohibition protects individuals’ morality. The new public policy that is implemented has to line up with the moral values of society. Physician assisted deaths involve the debate between morality convictions and what we think is/ should be legal. The legal issue of assisted deaths concerns who should decide the fate of patients once the patient becomes in able to do so themselves. Concerns multiple positions with consequences and oppositions on both side. rewriting safe public policies is difficult; it involves the consideration all in society - public policy must be considered in the perspective of all, or almost all, people with difference situations. - public policy must the practical problems, moral and religious views. - focus on the rights of patients and rights of physicians need to be considered in any re written legislature in response to the judgement, the public policy needs to be an appropriate remedy. (admin law fundamental)...