c anada ag 2015 SCC 5 Sabia Costantini FACTS Criminal Code s241 states Everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide commits ad indictable offence s 14 No person may consent death being inflicted on them ID: 198352
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "C arter v." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Carter v. canada (a.g.) 2015 SCC 5
Sabia
CostantiniSlide2
FACTSCriminal Code s.241 states:Everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide, commits ad indictable offence;• s. 14:
No person may consent death being inflicted on them.
These provisions PROHIBITED ASSISTED SUICIDE IN CANADA.Slide3
Facts Criminal Code s.241 states:Everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide, commits ad indictable offence;• s. 14:No person may consent death being inflicted on them.
These provisions PROHIBITED ASSISTED SUICIDE IN CANADA.Slide4
FACTSAFTER 22 YEARS.. THE RULING ON Rodriguez v. Canada was OVERTURNED. Kathelen Carter:
degenerative disease (spinal stenosis). Her daughter, Lee Carter, brought her to Switzerland for an assisted death in 2010.
Gloria Taylor: Ms. Rodriguez’s illness (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. (died for an infection in late 2012)
The respective families of
Kathelen
Carter and Gloria TaylorSlide5
ISSUESDoes the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting physician‑assisted dying infringe s. 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom?Slide6
ISSUESGloria Taylor’s words during the court case:..What I fear is a death that negates, as opposed to concludes, my life. I do not want to die slowly, piece by piece. I do not want to waste away unconscious in a hospital bed. I do not want to die wracked with
pain.
The
trial judge
concluded that the prohibition on assisted dying limited Ms. Taylor
’s s. 7 right to liberty
and security of
the
personSlide7
ISSUES The trial judge found that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying had the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear that they would be incapable of doing so when they
reached the point where suffering was intolerable.
On that basis, she found that
the right to life was engaged
.Slide8
DECISION In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down the provision in the Criminal Code of Canada, giving adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and enduringly the right to a doctor's help in dying. The decision will take effect in 2016.Slide9
Decision Reasons:• The court found that s. 241 and section 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringed
s. 7 of the Charter and that this violation is not saved under s. 1
.
•The infringement of
the right to life, liberty and security of the
is
not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.Slide10
RATIONALE: stare decisis The court’s decision was based on
legal precedents
.
T
he reference case was Rodriguez v. Canada.
• The
court overturned
its own 5-4 ruling from 22 years ago
–
because of the reasons listed before-in
which it rejected a right to assisted suicide claimed by Sue Rodriguez, 42, who suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
. Slide11
ANALYSISCarter v. Canada is a landmark decision. It gives the chance to people who are terminally ill and suffering the possibility to end their lives in a dignified way. Moreover, the decision mirrors people’s will and it protect their rights and freedoms, allowing them to die close to their family and in their own country. Slide12
SURVEY QUESTION DO YOU THINK CANADA’S DECISION IN LEGALIZING ASSISTED SUICIDE WILL ATTRACT FOREIGN TERMINAL PEOPLE and GET ECONOMICAL BENEFIT FROM THEM? YES NO