Introduction
It is natural, in the context of the Criminal Code 2016 Bill C-14 and the 2020 Bill C-7, that there would be diverse views on the complex issue of assisted death. Bill C-14, enacted in 2016, was the first significant step in this complicated matter. It is reasonable to empower people to make end-of-life decisions to respect their autonomy and relieve suffering.
Legislative Foundations of the Right for Assisted Death
The 2016 amendment reflects on the Carter ruling because there was a need to account for a range of possibilities for assisted dying. While embracing the positive changes brought by the 2016 bill, it is vital to acknowledge the wide range of circumstances that can cause suffering. For instance, fears about the future, social isolation, discrimination, grief, and poverty can cause suffering. Permitting medical assistance for such types can pose unacceptable risks, where expansion of eligibility can lead to the normalization of suicide outside the end-of-life context. The point of view is perfectly valid, but it should not precede individual choice of a peaceful death as opposed to a prolonged, painful, or difficult one.
The reasonably foreseeable death clause introduced in the 2016 bill was a reprieve for the suffering and a step towards achieving autonomy for those who opt for assisted death. However, when medical-assisted death is only available based on suffering alone and reasonable natural death, eligibility becomes more difficult to screen. Therefore, the 2020 Bill C-7 is most welcome since the 2016 Bill placed an overbroad restriction on sick people’s rights to be free from pain and suffering.
The flexibility of the reasonably foreseeable death standard made Bill C-14 broader, especially in the absence of a specific time remaining before death. I believe the C-7 offers more insight into the eligibility and procedural safeguards issues in the previous Bill. Generally, I feel the C-14 and C-7 Bills fairly reflect the Carter case’s SCC decision because they preserve the quality of life, liberty, and security of people seeking assisted death services.
Sections 1 and 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been key to the preservation of individual rights to life, liberty, and security. The two sections are commonly encountered in the administration of justice, where autonomy and quality of life are appropriately recognized as liberty and security interests. Section 7 further mandates that the fundamental principle of justice be upheld whenever the government violates individual rights.
Therefore, a combination of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the standards outlined in the 2016 and 2021 criminal codes specifies the conditions and preconditions to ensure that no one abuses the option to end life. It is unjustified, for example, to outlaw individuals from making conscious choices regarding how they wish to die if in extreme suffering. Prohibiting that fundamental right is equivalent to saying that one deserves to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain.
Conclusion
In conclusion, medically assisted suicide does not end the life of a living person but ends the suffering of a dying person. The Carter vs. Canada case set the country on the right path to implement reforms that expand eligibility to preserve human dignity and choice at the end of life. The latter Bills, C-14 and C-7, justly mirror the SCC decision in the Carter case as the only ethical option to assist the suffering by giving the victim a choice. Therefore, physician-assisted death offers a broader perspective in law to respect the autonomy and relief of suffering, which is a timely reform in Canada.