In a landmark decision Feb. 6, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to strike down the federal law that criminalizes physician-assisted death, ruling this prohibition infringes on a person’s rights to life, liberty, and security as set out in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As someone who was present at the courthouse to cover the story that day, it’s easy to describe the emotional waves the announcement sent around the building.
What happens next? That question was asked more times than I could count, and there are hundreds of others left unanswered. Who will create new laws? When will that happen? Will doctors and those suffering have a say? The implications of this historic decision are both enormous and controversial.
The first step may be to wait, for a long time.
The judges suspended their ruling for 12 months to allow the government time to change the specific section of the Criminal Code. Until then, it is still illegal to seek physician-assisted death.
The Supreme Court did something similar in 2013 when it struck down Canada’s prostitution laws. The government had a year to replace them, but recently announced changes have already drawn criticism.
Following the backlash from the updated prostitution legislation, it’s hard to believe the Conservative government will want to try again with physician-assisted death. This is an election year, and any misstep can have detrimental effects on a party’s popularity.
In a Forum Research survey from 2011, 67 per cent of Canadians have said they support physician-assisted death, yet it remains a divisive topic for many groups, including religious, disability advocates, and seniors’ associations. It’s doubtful the Conservatives would risk setting boundaries for such a law before an election, one that is advertised to be a tight race between all three parties.
But can the government disregard Supreme Court suggestions? They can, and they have done it before.
When abortion laws were struck down in 1988, the Progressive Conservative government at the time failed to come up with any new passable legislation. Since then there have been no federal laws governing the practice, and many are predicting assisted suicide will follow the same trend.
The Supreme Court judgement provides little direction for the government to follow. The only defining parameters mentioned are that these changes apply to competent adults who have clearly consented to ending their life and are intolerably suffering from a grievous medical condition.
It defines “suffering” as both physical and psychological pain, and fails to mention the word “terminal” throughout the entire declaration. So someone seeking death with the help of a doctor does not need to be dying, just suffering from a grievous illness and incapable of taking their own life.
If imminent death is not needed, and with such a broad description of the term “suffering,” where is “average” suffering differentiated from “suffering enough to warrant death?”
The judges agreed that administering appropriate safeguards would be capable of protecting vulnerable people from abuse and error, yet they gave no indication of what safeguards work the best.
Many rejoiced at the law being struck down, but it’s going to take a lot of time and discussion with key participants in the issue before everyone can possibly be satisfied.
