This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/americas/supreme-court-of-canada-overturns-bans-on-doctor-assisted-suicide.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Canada Court Strikes Down Ban on Aiding Patient Suicide Canada Court Strikes Down Ban on Aiding Patient Suicide
(35 minutes later)
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday struck down laws banning physician-assisted suicide for patients with “grievous and irremediable” medical conditions.OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday struck down laws banning physician-assisted suicide for patients with “grievous and irremediable” medical conditions.
The unanimous decision, which reverses the position taken by the court 22 years ago, came more quickly than expected and might become an issue in federal elections to be held this year.The unanimous decision, which reverses the position taken by the court 22 years ago, came more quickly than expected and might become an issue in federal elections to be held this year.
“The 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,” the court wrote, adding that an absolute ban was not needed to ensure that vulnerable people are not coerced “to commit suicide at a time of weakness.”“The 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,” the court wrote, adding that an absolute ban was not needed to ensure that vulnerable people are not coerced “to commit suicide at a time of weakness.”
The decision, which follows hearings last fall, comes at a time when Canadians are widely debating assisted dying. In June, Quebec passed legislation that would allow the practice starting at the end of this year. Until the Supreme Court ruling on Friday, that legislation seemed likely to be overturned under federal criminal law.The decision, which follows hearings last fall, comes at a time when Canadians are widely debating assisted dying. In June, Quebec passed legislation that would allow the practice starting at the end of this year. Until the Supreme Court ruling on Friday, that legislation seemed likely to be overturned under federal criminal law.
Then, in August, the Canadian Medical Association altered its long-established opposition to doctors’ assisting in suicides. Its new policy allows physicians, within the bounds of laws, “to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying.” But some churches and some groups that advocate on behalf of disabled people urged the court not to revoke the law.Then, in August, the Canadian Medical Association altered its long-established opposition to doctors’ assisting in suicides. Its new policy allows physicians, within the bounds of laws, “to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide medical aid in dying.” But some churches and some groups that advocate on behalf of disabled people urged the court not to revoke the law.
“This is a sensitive issue for many Canadians, with deeply held beliefs on both sides,” Peter MacKay, the minister of justice, said in a statement on Friday. “We will study the decision and ensure all perspectives on this difficult issue are heard.”“This is a sensitive issue for many Canadians, with deeply held beliefs on both sides,” Peter MacKay, the minister of justice, said in a statement on Friday. “We will study the decision and ensure all perspectives on this difficult issue are heard.”
Steven Fletcher, a Conservative member of Parliament who was paralyzed in 1996 in an automobile accident, praised the court’s ruling.Steven Fletcher, a Conservative member of Parliament who was paralyzed in 1996 in an automobile accident, praised the court’s ruling.
“It will allow people to live longer because they will have the peace of mind knowing that they won’t have a horrible death,” he told reporters at the Supreme Court, explaining that some patients kill themselves when they are still capable of doing so because they do not have options later. “It will allow people to live longer because they will have the peace of mind knowing that they won’t have a horrible death,” he told reporters at the Supreme Court, explaining that some patients kill themselves while they are still capable of doing so because they will not have the option later.
The decision does not immediately allow physicians to assist patients in their deaths. Existing legislation and regulations will remain in place for one year to allow the federal government, which enforces criminal law, and provinces, which administer health care, to adopt new measures.The decision does not immediately allow physicians to assist patients in their deaths. Existing legislation and regulations will remain in place for one year to allow the federal government, which enforces criminal law, and provinces, which administer health care, to adopt new measures.
Mr. Fletcher, who previously introduced a bill to allow assisted suicide, declined to speculate on the government’s next steps. His draft legislation was not formally supported by the government, making its chances of approval remote.Mr. Fletcher, who previously introduced a bill to allow assisted suicide, declined to speculate on the government’s next steps. His draft legislation was not formally supported by the government, making its chances of approval remote.
The two women from British Columbia whose legal cases led to the court’s decision did not live to hear the verdict. Five years ago, one of those women, Kay Carter, who was suffering from a degenerative condition known as spinal stenosis, was taken to Switzerland, where assisted deaths are legal, to die. At the court, Lee Carter, her daughter, said the decision was “a huge victory for Canadians and a legacy for Kay.” The other woman whose case led to the decision, Gloria Taylor, died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, in 2012.The two women from British Columbia whose legal cases led to the court’s decision did not live to hear the verdict. Five years ago, one of those women, Kay Carter, who was suffering from a degenerative condition known as spinal stenosis, was taken to Switzerland, where assisted deaths are legal, to die. At the court, Lee Carter, her daughter, said the decision was “a huge victory for Canadians and a legacy for Kay.” The other woman whose case led to the decision, Gloria Taylor, died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, in 2012.
As is the Supreme Court’s custom in a significant unanimous decision, the authorship of the ruling was attributed to “The Court” rather than to an individual justice.As is the Supreme Court’s custom in a significant unanimous decision, the authorship of the ruling was attributed to “The Court” rather than to an individual justice.
Dr. Chris Simpson, the president of the medical association, said in a statement that his organization would work with governments to ensure that doctors will not be required to assist in patients’ deaths because of the ruling. Dr. Chris Simpson, the president of the medical association, said in a statement that his organization would work with governments to ensure that doctors would not be required to assist in patients’ deaths because of the ruling.
“The C.M.A. supports physicians being able to follow their conscience in choosing whether to participate in medical aid in dying and we note that the court quoted directed from our policy,” Dr. Simpson said in the statement. “The C.M.A. supports physicians being able to follow their conscience in choosing whether to participate in medical aid in dying, and we note that the court quoted directed from our policy,” Dr. Simpson said in the statement.
In 1993, the court upheld the laws against physician-assisted death in a case brought in British Columbia by Sue Rodriguez who had Lou Gehrig’s disease. Despite that ruling, a physician, who has never been publicly identified, and a member of Parliament were present when Ms. Rodriguez killed herself a year later. In 1993, the court upheld the laws against physician-assisted death in a case brought in British Columbia by Sue Rodriguez, who had Lou Gehrig’s disease. Despite that ruling, a physician, who has never been publicly identified, and a member of Parliament were present when Ms. Rodriguez killed herself a year later.
In that decision, the court said that it feared that legalized assisted suicide could be abused at the expense of weak and vulnerable people. Friday’s decision, however, suggested that the legal and medical systems had evolved to the point where a complete ban was not needed. In that decision, the court said that it feared that legalized assisted suicide could be abused at the expense of weak and vulnerable people. The decision Friday, however, suggested that the legal and medical systems had evolved to the point where a complete ban was not needed.
“We agree with the trial judge that the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards,” the court wrote.“We agree with the trial judge that the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards,” the court wrote.