scholarly journals Examining the Foreseeable: Assisted Suicide as a Herald of Changing Moralities

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joane Martel

After her intense battle for the decriminalization of assisted suicide in the Supreme Court of Canada, Sue Rodriguez committed suicide with medical assistance in 1994. Following her suicide, government and law representatives remained silent and no criminal charges were ever brought against the person(s) who presumably assisted Ms Rodriguez in her death. This apparent non-intervention of criminal law is examined in view of the useful role that the Rodriguez event may have played in a possible shift in the dominant morality. It is argued that the Rodriguez assisted suicide may have been a useful 'crime' (in the Durkheimian sense) in that it brought to the fore the possibility that social conditions - which made the 'crime' possible - may no longer be in harmony with conventional morality. Similarly to Socrates' crime, the Rodriguez case can be seen as an anticipation of a new morality. It can be analysed as a prelude to alterations, as directly preparing the way for changes in the dominant morality. The role of criminal law as a preferred mode of moral regulation is also examined in relation to the moral demands and expectations that arose during as well as after the judicial saga.

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-368
Author(s):  
ALISTER BROWNE ◽  
J.S. RUSSELL

AbstractIn 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the criminal law prohibiting physician assisted death in Canada. In 2016, Parliament passed legislation to allow what it called ‘medical assistance in dying (MAID).’ The authors first describe the arguments the Court used to strike down the law, and then argue that MAID as legalized in Bill C-14 is based on principles that are incompatible with a free and democratic society, prohibits assistance in dying that should be permitted, and makes access to medically-assisted death unnecessarily difficult. They then propose a version of MAID legislation (‘Ideal MAID’) that gives proponents and opponents of MAID everything they can legitimately want, contend that it is the only way to legalize MAID that is compatible with a free and democratic society, and conclude that it is the way to legalize MAID in Canada and other similarly free and democratic societies.


2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Palmer

IN a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v Canada (Attorney General) 2015 SCC 5 has declared the criminal law measures prohibiting the provision of assistance in dying unconstitutional. In doing so, the Supreme Court unanimously overruled its previous decision (Rodriguez v British Columbia (Attorney-General) [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519) upholding the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide.


2020 ◽  
pp. 136248062092832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Young

This article considers how different modalities of power emerge in medical assistance in dying (MAID) cases, particularly with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter v. Canada (A.G.) [2015]. While juridical rationalities cast the issue of MAID in terms of individual rights, Carter and subsequent legislation distinguishes MAID from assisted suicide through the creation of a regulatory scheme, so that individuals seeking MAID continue to be governed by medical power. This may seem to confirm arguments that the image of subjectivity evoked by juridical discourses simply results in the reinforcement of existing power relations. However, this article argues that it is the very regulatory scheme governing MAID that provides points of resistance, giving the individual opportunities to challenge medical power in ways that may destabilize power relations.


1969 ◽  
pp. 567
Author(s):  
Glen E. Luther

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly stressed that, in their roles as Crown prosecutors, Crown counsel must act as ministers of justice in order to protect against wrongful convictions. Historically this obligation has been referred to as a silver thread woven into "the web of Canadian criminal law." Central to this quasi-judicial Crown obligation is disclosure. In this article, the author contends that the Supreme Court ideal of Crown prosecutors acting as ministers of justice and making full disclosure does not correspond with reality. Rather, it is asserted that the Crown delegates disclosure duties to the police, does not take disclosure obligations seriously, and is not held responsible by the courts for failure to disclose. The author argues that until the Supreme Court clarifies the required scope of disclosure, especially as regards Charter defences; until Crown prosecution offices are prepared and equipped to take the disclosure role seriously; and until the courts enforce this role; there will continue to be wrongful convictions due to lack of disclosure.


2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy B. Flemming ◽  
Glen S. Krutz

The expanding public policy role of high courts heightens concerns over whether societal and political inequalities affect the outcomes of litigation. However, comparative research on this question is limited. This article assesses whether status inequalities between parties and differences in the experience and resources of attorneys influence the selection of cases for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Canada. A series of statistical models reveal that governments are more likely than other parties to influence whether leave is granted but that the experience and resources of lawyers, unlike in the United States, have little impact. The decentralized, low volume and high access features of the Canadian process may explain this finding.


Federalism-E ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Goldlist

The role of the Supreme Court in the practice of Canadian federalism, specifically the extent of its power and the effects of that power, is a hotly contested issue in Canadian political science. While some scholars have argued that the Court has taken on too political of a role that must be restricted, this paper develops the Court as a constitutional ‘umpire,’ whose rulings serve the important, but limited, functions of allocating political resources to incentivize negotiation, and establishing jurisdictional boundaries for said negotiations, leaving specific policy decisions to political, as opposed to legal, actors. Concerning the net outcome of the Court’s jurisprudence on the distribution of legislative powers, this paper illustrates the Court’s overall balancing approach, with grants of power to one level of government met with increases in authority to the other, in all major policy areas. Thus, ultimately shown to embrace both a limited and impartial approach to constitutional adjudication, the Court has done much to enhance its democratic legitimacy and constitutional utility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document