![\"The](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/1\/1e\/Supreme_Court_of_Canada%2C_Ottawa.jpg\" "\\"The")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In what is being called a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday struck down the total ban on doctor assisted suicide. The Court found that the ban went again the Charter right of \u201cSecurity of the person\u201d and as such struck that section of the law down.<\/p>\n
Insofar\u00a0 as\u00a0 they\u00a0 prohibit\u00a0 physician-assisted dying\u00a0 for\u00a0 competent\u00a0 adults who\u00a0 seek\u00a0 such\u00a0 assistance\u00a0 as\u00a0 a\u00a0 result\u00a0 of\u00a0 a\u00a0 grievous\u00a0 and\u00a0 irremediable\u00a0 medical\u00a0 condition that\u00a0 causes\u00a0 enduring\u00a0 and\u00a0 intolerable\u00a0 suffering,\u00a0 ss. 241(b)\u00a0 and\u00a0 14 of the\u00a0 Criminal Code deprive\u00a0 these\u00a0 adults\u00a0 of\u00a0 their\u00a0 right\u00a0 to\u00a0 life,\u00a0 liberty\u00a0 and\u00a0 security\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 person\u00a0 under\u00a0 s. 7 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 Charter.\u00a0 The\u00a0 right\u00a0 to\u00a0 life\u00a0 is\u00a0 engaged\u00a0 where\u00a0 the\u00a0 law\u00a0 or\u00a0 state\u00a0 action\u00a0 imposes death\u00a0 or\u00a0 an\u00a0 increased\u00a0 risk\u00a0 of\u00a0 death\u00a0 on\u00a0 a\u00a0 person,\u00a0 either\u00a0 directly or indirectly.\u00a0 Here, the prohibition deprives\u00a0 some\u00a0 individuals of\u00a0 life, as\u00a0 it\u00a0 has\u00a0 the\u00a0 effect\u00a0 of\u00a0 forcing some individuals\u00a0 to\u00a0 take\u00a0 their\u00a0 own\u00a0 lives\u00a0 prematurely,\u00a0 for\u00a0 fear\u00a0 that\u00a0 they\u00a0 would\u00a0 be\u00a0 incapable of\u00a0 doing\u00a0 so\u00a0 when\u00a0 they\u00a0 reached\u00a0 the\u00a0 point\u00a0 where\u00a0 suffering\u00a0 was\u00a0 intolerable.\u00a0 The\u00a0 rights to\u00a0 liberty\u00a0 and\u00a0 security\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 person,\u00a0 which\u00a0 deal\u00a0 with\u00a0 concerns\u00a0 about\u00a0 autonomy\u00a0 and quality\u00a0 of\u00a0 life,\u00a0 are\u00a0 also\u00a0 engaged.\u00a0 An\u00a0 individual\u2019s response\u00a0 to\u00a0 a\u00a0 grievous\u00a0 and irremediable\u00a0 medical\u00a0 condition\u00a0 is\u00a0 a\u00a0 matter\u00a0 critical\u00a0 to\u00a0 their\u00a0 dignity\u00a0 and\u00a0 autonomy.\u00a0 The prohibition\u00a0 denies\u00a0 people\u00a0 in\u00a0 this\u00a0 situation\u00a0 the\u00a0 right\u00a0 to\u00a0 make\u00a0 decisions\u00a0 concerning\u00a0 their bodily\u00a0 integrity\u00a0 and\u00a0 medical\u00a0 care\u00a0 and\u00a0 thus\u00a0 trenches\u00a0 on\u00a0 their\u00a0 liberty.\u00a0 And\u00a0 by\u00a0 leaving them\u00a0 to endure\u00a0 intolerable\u00a0 suffering,\u00a0 it impinges\u00a0 on their\u00a0 security\u00a0 of the person.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In my opinion, the Court used an interesting term when they said \u201ccompetent adults\u201d, as it underlies a basic freedom that most of us should be seen to have. If we are of sound mind, in other words, a \u201ccompetent adult\u201d, then decisions that we make in accordance with the use, misuse, or end of use of our bodies should not be impinged by other people if we are not causing harm or undue hardship to others, or costing other people or society unreasonable sums of money.<\/p>\n
In the case of assisted suicide, a competent adult person should be able to determine the end date of their life. With multiple safeguards in place to protect the vulnerable, I see no reason why it is any of modern society\u2019s business when any mentally competent person decides that they do not wish to live any longer. To me whether or not the person is in grievous pain does not enter the picture. If you are going to protect the sanctity of my life, then you must also protect my right to not live that life too, if I choose. If you do not leave me to determine what is best for me and my body, then you do not respect my right to my security of the person. I can and will determine what is best for me and my body and I do not give anyone the right to tell me differently. To put it mildly, my body, my choice.<\/p>\n
This does not mean that the concerns of the disabled are not without some merit. I do however think that some of the fears are overstated, or perhaps more likely, misplaced. The arguments that I heard yesterday from disabled individuals opposed to this decision was that they feared that some disabled people would choose to die because they were not able to live with pain in instances where proper pain management techniques were not being offered to them, or even withheld. To me, that would not be covered by this decision. That would be a failure of the medical system to provide care. As my spouse pointed out yesterday, the hope would be that palliative care in this country would now become more front and centre as many in the industry tried to improve end-of-life conditions so that fewer people would feel the need to end their life prematurely. Perhaps terminal patients in this country will now find their pain-management and quality of life are more important now than they ever were before.<\/p>\n
This idea of competent persons should really be seen to apply in other instances as well. We have too many laws that infringe on what a person can do with their own body, when doing so causes no harm to others. Cases in point; drug use and prostitution laws.<\/p>\n
As I have argued before, the right of an adult person to decide who they will have sex with should be a basic right. The fact that money may be a deciding factor in that decision should not be the business of the government. If the people involved are competent adults and they make the choice freely without duress, then it is their choice, and theirs alone whether or not they proceed with that action. What we as a society have a responsibility to do is to make sure that anyone who makes that choice is doing it with free will and not seen as a last resort or as an only choice. Yes, many people are in that industry that do not want to be there, our duty is to them to make sure that nobody finds themself in that position. However, telling those that want to be there, and are of competent mind to make that decision, that they cannot, takes away their right of self determination.<\/p>\n
As for those that take drugs. Yes, many people abuse drugs or alcohol and it has a devastating effect on their life. However, many people use alcohol and drugs recreationally and never have a problem functioning, or in fact thriving, in our society. I personally do not drink, smoke, or ingest any illicit drugs, but I do not for one second feel that it is my right to tell others who seem to be able to do it in a responsible manner, to not do it. Again, what a competent person does with their own body is none of my business.<\/p>\n
Now, this does not mean that people should now be able to do what they want with no consideration for other people or of the common good. For example, I was challenged yesterday as to whether or not this means that I am against seatbelt use. No, I am not, and I think that you are an idiot if you do not use one. I would argue though that not doing up your seatbelt is your right, just do not expect an insurance company to pay for your choice in the case of injury, or more likely death. If you do not take the reasonable precautions to avoid grievous injury as prescribed by your insurer, then you should not expect them to pay large sums of money to your estate in the event of your untimely death. The same would go for not putting children in seatbelts, they are not competent adults and it is not the right of the parent or guardian to make a decision that will increase their chance of death or injury. It is not in the child\u2019s best interest.<\/p>\n
Another case in point is the anti-vaccine movement. The choice to not vaccinate is not one that affects only the person, but of all of those around the person also. Because the true effectiveness of vaccines only really exists in the \u201cherd immunity\u201d achieved when 95% of the population is immunized, by not immunizing one also makes medical choices for those other than one\u2019s self. If immunization was 100% effective for every person, and every person could get it, then your choice not to would be yours alone. Immunizations do not work that way though, so for the greater good of society, everyone who can get the vaccine should get it, to protect those who cannot for other than philosophical reasons. In other words, not just your body, so not just your choice.<\/p>\n
We definitely need to consider the rights of a competent adult person more often when we are crafting public policy. The litmus test I would say is whether or not the choice made by someone infringes on the rights of another. If nobody else\u2019s right are being impinged on, then perhaps we should stay out of these decisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In what is being called a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday struck down the total ban on doctor assisted suicide. The Court found that the ban went again the Charter right of \u201cSecurity of the person\u201d and as such struck that section of the law down. Insofar\u00a0 as\u00a0 they\u00a0 prohibit\u00a0 physician-assisted dying\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,4,3,10],"tags":[29,28],"class_list":["post-367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-federal","category-opinion","category-political","category-provincial","tag-canada","tag-criminal-code","post-preview"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the100thmeridian.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}