1 / 5

Carter v. Canada: Canadian Criminal Law and Medically Assisted Dying - Affordable Defence

Contact the lawyers at the Ottawa criminal law firm of Edelson Clifford D'Angelo Friedman LLP at 613-909-8153.

Download Presentation

Carter v. Canada: Canadian Criminal Law and Medically Assisted Dying - Affordable Defence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CARTER V. CANADA: CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW AND MEDICALLY ASSISTED DYING http://affordabledefence.com/

  2. On behalf of Edelson Clifford D'Angelo Friedman LLP posted in Criminal Defenseon August 10, 2016. On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a landmark unanimous decision, declared that “prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”[1] The case of Carter v. Canada, was a drastic shift from the Courts previous ruling in Rodriguez v. British Columbia, which upheld the constitutionality of s. 241 (b) of the Criminal Code.[2] Section 241 (b) states that it is a crime to aid and abet a person to commit suicide and s. 14, states that a person cannot consent to die. These provisions worked together to make physician assisted suicide a crime in Canada.[3] http://affordabledefence.com/

  3. The Court stated that the matrix of the law and the facts in this case were much different than they were in Rodriguez. The Court found that the outright prohibition of physician assisted suicide was overbroad, infringing s. 7 of the Charter and violating the principles of fundamental justice. The ban was also not proportional to the objective it was serving, namely to protect vulnerable people from taking their lives in times of weakness. This means that the Charter infringement could not be saved by the reasonable limits clause in s. 1 of the Charter. http://affordabledefence.com/

  4. The Court declared that s. 214 (b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code were of no force or effect. The law could not prohibit physician assisted suicide if the person was a clearly competent adult, who had a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes intolerable suffering and had given their consent to die.[4] While the Court declared the legislation invalid, it suspended the decision from taking place for 12 months to allow Parliament to introduce new legislation.[5] In January of 2016, the Supreme Court granted the government a four month extension, giving the government until June 6, 2016, to pass new laws. While drafting the new legislation, Parliament had to balance the social interest of those who seek medical assistance in dying with the task of safeguarding vulnerable members of society. http://affordabledefence.com/

  5. Thank You http://affordabledefence.com/

More Related