Analysis:
The argument that arose before the court was a different legal conception of s.7 than that the prevailing Rodriguez case was deciding. Laws relating to principles of over breadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since Rodriguez. The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also contrasted the evidence before the court in Rodriguez. The evidence proved that assisted suicide does not deprive people who are disabled from s. 15 under equal treatment. I think that it understandable that the appeal court has pointed out the flaws in the arguments but we need to keep our eyes on the higher principle that the charter protection against being killed that is the right to life is not a trivial thing an doesn’t
…show more content…
There are three implications that would occur if a change in law were past, one would be the change in palliative care. Adequate palliative care is a prerequisite to the legalization of medical aid in dying. Patients should never have to choose death because of unbearable pain, which can be treated but cannot be accessed. It is wrong to deny grievously ill patients the option of medical aid in dying because of systematic inadequacies in the delivery of palliative care. Safeguarding patients by building a strong patient physician relationship must be established so that there is no foul play in the outcome. The issue is that it is very difficult to assess the overall competence and voluntariness of a patient. CMA mandates that the protection of physicians is a must; and any change in law must legally protect those physicians who choose to participate from criminal, civil, and disciplinary proceedings. No physician should feel compelled to participate, and patients are free to transfer to another hospital if a physician denies a patients