The
Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) decries the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in
Carter striking down Criminal Code
provisions against physician assisted suicide - Canada enters a new era of
'suicide relativism'.
TORONTO, ON February 6 2015 - The Catholic Civil Rights
League (CCRL) warns of the dangers of a new era of 'suicide relativism' in
Canada, following the Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Carter to strike down the
Criminal Code provisions against physician assisted suicide.
The Supreme Court's ruling now leaves legislatures and
provincial health disciplinary mechanisms to sort out the messy business of
competing conscience claims, let alone the parameters of 'medical aid in
dying'.
By this decision, the Court has re-asserted its claim to the
title 'Policy Maker of the Year', as recognized by the MacDonald-Laurier
Institute in December, 2014. The Supreme
Court has moved our country from a position where suicide was opposed outright,
to a jurisdiction where suicide is to be made available on request, subject to
future unknown conditions.
The Court overruled its previous decision from 1993 in Rodriguez, in which the same provisions
of the Criminal Code were upheld, by a 5-4 majority, asserting in today's ruling
that the law and factual matrix have changed in the past 22
years.
The Court failed to mention that nine different motions or
legislative attempts have been raised in Parliament in that time frame, with six
separate votes on the issue, all of which rejected efforts to change the law,
recognizing the risks to the most highly vulnerable. In fact, in 2011 and in 2012 Parliament gave
its near unanimous support for a national anti-suicide prevention policy. The Supreme Court has now undercut such
legislative enactments.
Given that history, Parliament will need to give serious
consideration to the Charter's notwithstanding clause, to allow further time for
serious reflection on the merits of what has been introduced as a new regime in
Canada. A one year suspension in an
election year is unreasonable.
While the Court has suspended its decision for one year to
allow legislatures and provincial health care professional Colleges time to
consider legislative changes, that time frame may be insufficient to allow all
of the various public institutions to address the challenging demands involved.
The CCRL sought that clear language be provided by the Court
to assert the primacy of conscientious rights of healthcare professionals. The Supreme Court stepped back from making
any such pronouncement, preferring to allow a future 'reconciliation' of
competing rights claims.
Such concerns are not limited to healthcare
professionals. Chaplains,
lawyers, and other counselors will be confronted with how to deal with requests
for assistance on suicide in the months ahead.
The Court has struck down these provisions of the Criminal
Code with severe limitations on any new provisions to re-criminalize particular
forms of assisted suicide. The court has asserted that any future law must
accept situations based on irremediable medical conditions and where there
may be intolerable suffering. In
its reasons, the Court stated, 'We
make no pronouncement on other situations where physician?assisted dying may be
sought'. However, as has been seen in
other jurisdictions, efforts to impose safeguards rarely limit the availability
of assisted suicide. By its own language, the Supreme Court leaves open the
likelihood of further challenges to any draft legislation.
For
example, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association supported the
decriminalization of these provisions primarily on the basis of personal
autonomy - i.e. if a competent patient sought to be killed, the medical
professional should assist, regardless of the underlying medical condition.
In
the state of Washington, research has shown that the introduction of physician
assisted suicide quickly is enlarged over time, such that individuals who may
have years to live are encouraged to take their life prematurely. Assisted suicide regimes lead to abuse of the
aged, especially from those who stand to inherit. Will the next push be to
expand euthanasia to non-terminal individuals, or the allowance of individuals
other than doctors to prescribe death drugs?
The
Court also awarded the BC Civil Liberties Association full indemnity costs, such
that taxpayers are obliged to pay what will likely exceed $1 million for this
challenge at three court levels.
The focus of section 241 of the Criminal Code is on the
person who assists in a suicide. The
CCRL's intervention emphasized that most Canadian healthcare providers consider
physician-assisted death immoral or unethical for reasons of science, conscience
or religion. These healthcare providers may now be confronted by demands that
they directly or indirectly participate in what they consider to be immoral
actions.
Medical Colleges in Saskatchewan and Ontario are currently in
the process of addressing such demands, including the contentious issue of
mandatory referral by objecting physicians to another doctor, which the CCRL has
asserted requires an objecting physician to participate in 'wrong'. Other provincial Colleges have already
mandated such referrals, exposing doctors to professional disciplinary
charges. Can migration from the
profession in Canada be far behind?
At a minimum, the CCRL asserts the need for robust protection
for the freedoms of everyone who declines or opposes physician-assisted death,
or refuses to refer patients for such procedures, for reasons of conscience or
religion.
About the
CCRL
Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating
conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates
with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes
defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs.
The CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization with a large
nationwide membership base. The CCRL is a Canadian non-profit organization
entirely supported by the generosity of its members.
For further information:
Christian Domenic Elia,
PhD
Executive
Director,
416-466-8244;
@CCRLtweets
