The Supreme Court of sa国际传媒 spent Wednesday hearing arguments on the federal prohibition against assisted suicide. A decision will likely be rendered within the next several months. Regardless of the outcome, the country must have a deep and searching conversation on this controversial issue.
The sa国际传媒 Civil Liberties Association launched the challenge on behalf of two sa国际传媒 women who have since died. Kathleen Carter suffered from a degenerative spinal condition 鈥� she died in 2010 at an assisted-suicide clinic in Switzerland. Gloria Taylor, who suffered from Lou Gehrig鈥檚 disease and wanted help ending her life, died of an infection in 2012, about a year after joining the Carter family鈥檚 court challenge.
The last time this issue was before the high court was in 1993, when Sue Rodriguez, a North Saanich woman suffering from ALS, sought the right to assisted suicide. The court ruled 5-4 against her application, the divided court more or less representing divided public opinion on the topic. In 1994, with the help of a physician, Rodriguez ended her own life.
Surveys indicate public attitudes in sa国际传媒 have shifted since the Rodriguez case, with the majority favouring physician-assisted suicide. A poll conducted last week showed 84 per cent of respondents said they agreed that 鈥渁 doctor should be able to help someone end their life if the person is a competent adult who is terminally ill, suffering unbearably and repeatedly asks for assistance to die.鈥�
But should the Supreme Court be influenced by opinion polls? Shouldn鈥檛 members of the court decide the case on points of law after hearing legal arguments? A public opinion poll is not a legal argument, after all.
The place where public opinion should matter is Parliament, and that鈥檚 where the issue should be debated after the Supreme Court has rendered its decision, regardless of which way the decision goes. It is the task of MPs to craft laws that reflect the wishes of Canadians.
If the high court rules that the Criminal Code prohibition is unconstitutional, Parliament would need to move quickly on the issue. Failure to act would leave a legislative vacuum in which no law would govern assisted suicide. If assisted suicide is to be permitted, it should be with strict conditions to guard as much as possible against misuse and abuse.
Many questions would have to be answered. If doctor-assisted suicide became legal, would it become mandatory for physicians whose beliefs and values go contrary to such an act? If someone suffering physical pain can demand assistance in dying, what about someone suffering mental anguish?
It鈥檚 a minefield, but it must be navigated. The issue is a divisive one, with deeply held opinions and beliefs on all sides.
Those advocating for assisted suicide want it as a choice to end suffering, either for themselves or loved ones. Those opposed fear a slippery slope, a step toward euthanasia and the devaluing of human life. Some say it is wrong to allow a human being to suffer when that suffering can be stopped. Some say it is wrong to deliberately end a human life.
It is legal in sa国际传媒 for a doctor to induce a coma in a terminally ill patient, then remove life support. It is a crime for a doctor to increase the dose of pain-relieving medication to the point where the patient dies. The space between those two acts is very, very small, yet crossing that small space is a huge step.
It鈥檚 an issue tangled in emotions, conflicting philosophies and opposing moral perspectives. It鈥檚 a difficult discussion, but it鈥檚 a discussion that must take place.
