Euthanasia letters.

The National post, on October 21, published many letters on euthanasia and assisted suicide. Here is a sample of the letters that support our current laws.

The government has no place in granting doctors with the “right” to kill a seriously ill Canadian. Their role is to protect the vulnerable and uphold the fact that all lives have equal dignity, meaning, and value to the end. We cannot just accept someone’s death wish and agree that their lives are no longer worth living. Instead, we must ease their suffering, provide comfort, and restore their sense of dignity and value.
Min Kim, Richmond, B.C.  

The threat of abuse is always present with assisted suicide, and is a reality in every jurisdiction that has accepted it. Doctors with the legal sanction to prescribe lethal medications, can and will do so without patient knowledge and consent, for the patient’s “own good.”
Natalie Sonnen, Surrey, B.C. 

Legalizing assisted suicide serves one purpose — to protect the doctor, friend or family member who kills a suicidal individual. I am wary of any law that makes it easier for somebody to kill another person.
Suzana Kovacic, Burnaby, B.C. 

Accepting that death will come at the end of our life is radically different from causing that death. In recent years both Canadian Courts and Parliament have articulated wise reasons for refusing to legitimate euthanasia or “physician-assisted suicide.” Suicide is not a common good to be promoted or assisted. It is a tragic loss, a despair. We rely on physicians to heal if possible, treat to their best ability, and never do deliberate harm. Don’t kill this trust.
Martha Crean, Toronto. 

Assisted suicide should not be an option. The aged, the depressed and the disabled could easily be pressured into “wanting it” by people (relatives) who want to get rid of them. Doctors could be forced to participate, even if they were against the idea of helping people to kill themselves. Curing people, not killing people, is what doctors are here for.
Kathleen Higgins, Delta, B.C. 

Assisted suicide should definitely NOT be an option for those who want it. Suicide is MURDER of ones own self and therefore it goes against the very nature of mankind. I empathize with those suffering from incurable conditions but this must be a call to everyone to assist our fellow human beings in their sufferings through our support and love, not by snuffing out their life. Who are we to judge who lives or dies?
Maxine Leslie.

Top 20 blog articles on issues related to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

1. Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse and the Illusion of Personal Choice - Feb 17, 2011.

2. Euthanasia is out-of-control in the Netherlands – Sept 25, 2012.

3. Declaration of Hope – Jan 17, 2013.

4. Nitschke continues to promote Nembutal sales over the internet – June 22, 2010.

5. Dr Phil show: Woman wants to euthanize her adult children with disabilities – April 16, 2012.

6. Belgium euthanasia study finds that nearly half of all euthanasia deaths are unreported – Dec 4, 2010.

7. Trisomy 18 is not a Death Sentence. The story of Lilliana Dennis – May 29, 2012.

8. Suicide/Asphyxiation Exit Kit company raided by FBI – May 26, 2011.

9. Elder abuse caught on video, incident is not isolated May 22, 2013.

10. Euthanasia Poll: What do the people of Quebec really want – Nov 22, 2010.

11. Oregon Suicide rate soars after legalizing assisted suicide - Sept 12, 2010.

12. 5 reasons why elderly people are devalued – May 25, 2010.

13. Bill to outlaw euthanasia by dehydration passed by Italy’s lower house – July 13, 2011.

14. Belgian twins euthanized out of fear of blindness – Jan 14, 2013.

15. Responding to the disturbing decision by Justice Smith in the Carter case in British Columbia – June 20, 2012.

16. British Columbia court case seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada - Nov 12, 2011.

17. Mobile euthanasia units started in the Netherlands today – March 1, 2012.

18. CARP asks federal government to add offense of elder abuse to the criminal code - March 1, 2011.

19. Mild stroke led to mother’s forced death by dehydration – Sept 27, 2011.

20. Belgium may legalize euthanasia of children with disabilities – Feb 27, 2013. 

Other popular articles:

Oregon 2012 Assisted Suicide statistics - January 24, 2013.

Depressed Belgian woman dies by Euthanasia – February 6, 2013.

Brief presented by the Physicians for the Total Refusal of Euthanasia – September 25, 2013.

The bracket creep of euthanasia in Belgium

The case against euthanasia.

This article appeared in the October 16 issue of The Mercury, the main newspaper in Hobart, Tasmania. This article was a companion piece to an article in favour of legalisation of euthanasia by Emeritus Professor Colin Wendell-Smith, convenor of Doctors for Dying with Dignity.

By Michael Cook, The Mercury - October 16, 2013

LET'S take a look at Belgium.

As Tasmanian MPs ponder legalising voluntary euthanasia as a remedy for unbearable suffering, they should take a close look at the situation in Belgium, where it has been legal since 2002.

For starters, their colleagues in Brussels are currently pondering whether to legalise euthanasia for children. Are Belgian five-year-olds really capable of voluntarily choosing to die?

The Belgian MPs are also studying whether to authorise euthanasia for patients with dementia who have written advance directives, even if they appear to be cheerful and content with their impaired life.

Is that really voluntary?

The history of euthanasia in Belgium is one of unremitting bracket creep.

What began with euthanasia only for constant, unbearable, untreatable suffering and only for consenting adults keeps expanding and expanding with consequences that no one could envisage.

Here are a few of them.

EPC applauds the Supreme Court of Canada Rasouli decision.

The Rasouli family and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) have won a precedent setting decision at the Supreme Court of Canada in the case: Cutherbertson V Rasouli.

Rasouli family with lawyers
at Supreme Court last year.

EPC applauds the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada who upheld the unanimous decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal requiring that doctors must obtain consent from patients or substitute decision-makers before withdrawing life-sustaining treatment where such a decision is anticipated to result in the death of the patient.

EPC intervened in the Rasouli case to support the need for oversight of doctors in addressing life and death decisions. 

The Supreme Court of Canada maintained that doctors must raise any objections or concerns they may have about consent to treatment before the Consent and Capacity Board who have the jurisdiction to address any challenges to that consent made by a doctor.

Hugh Scher

Hugh Scher, the lawyer who represented EPC at the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized the need for oversight of doctors relative to treatment decisions at the end of life. The Court decision ensures that patient values, beliefs and best interests are given prominence, in conjunction with the clinical considerations of doctors”

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the EPC stated:

“There is a real concern about the impact of accuracy of diagnosis and the critical role of patient autonomy in the making of treatment decisions. 

EPC is pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada maintained that doctors are not the arbiters of life and death.”

The Rasouli case concerned Hassan Rasouli who underwent surgery on October 7, 2010 at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre for a benign brain tumour. He experienced a bacterial meningitis infection that caused him significant cognitive damage.

Hassan Rasouli with family

On October 16, Mr Rasouli was placed on a ventilator and a tube was inserted to provide him hydration and nutrition.

His doctors, Cutherbertson and Rubenfeld, determined that Mr. Rasouli was in PVS and decided to withdraw the ventilator, but his wife, Parichehr Salasel, who is also a physician, refused to give consent to the withdrawal of the ventilator.

The Rasouli family insisted that he was not PVS and in fact he was responding. The family was later proven to be correct and his medical condition was upgraded..

The Rasouli family applied to the Superior Court of Justice to obtain an injunction to prevent the doctors at Sunnybrook hospital from unilaterally withdrawing the ventilator.

The case was heard over three days in February and March (2011) and the decision by Justice Himel was released on March 9, 2011.

Justice Himel decided that the Rasouli family did not need an injunction because the doctors are required to obtain consent before withdrawing medical treatment, which in this case was the ventilator.

The doctors appealed the decision of Justice Himel to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously decided that doctors did not have the unilateral right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, they upheld the role of the Consent and Capacity Board and stated that doctors continue to have the right to seek consent from the Consent and Capacity Board when consent is refused by the person or the attorney for personal care.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Link to the CBC interview with Hugh Scher, EPC legal counsel.

For further information, please contact:

• Hugh Scher, (Toronto) EPC Legal Counsel: (416) 816-6115 / hugh@sdlaw.ca
• Alex Schadenberg, (London) EPC Executive Director: (519) 851-1434 / info@epcc.ca

Links to other articles:

• Rasouli case: Who has the right to withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment in Canada.
• Rasouli case: A strange case to prove a point.
• Rasouli decision being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
• Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously rules on Rasouli case.

Tasmania euthanasia bill defeated.

The following article was written by Andrew Smith and published on October 17 by LifeSiteNews.

By Andrew Smith, Oct. 17 2013 

The Tasmanian euthanasia and assisted suicide bill was narrowly defeated in Tasmania by a margin of 13:11 votes in a parliamentary marathon that came right down to the wire. The bill was co-sponsored by Labor Premier Lara Giddings and Greens leader Nick McKim.

Paul Russell,
Director of HOPE Australia

Paul Russell, Director of HOPE Australia said he was more relieved than joyful.  

“The tension in the chamber was palpable over both evenings that the bill was debated.  Counting down the numbers, it did not become obvious to anyone which way the vote would go until about the second to last speech.” 

“Both sides inescapably find these debates draining and, as was evidenced tonight, both sides are passionate about their position,” he said.

The “no” position was strengthened at the eleventh hour yesterday by an eleven-page letter from the Tasmanian Law Society criticising 19 aspects of the bill.  The law society does not take a moral or ethical position – only a legal position.  But in their judgement the bill was unworkable.

Supreme Court To Release Landmark Ruling (Rasouli Case) On Whether Doctors Can Unilaterally Terminate Life Support Without Patient Consent - Rasouli V. Cuthbertson.

Media Release - Canada Newswire, October 17, 2013

The Supreme Court is set to release, tomorrow, its decision in a landmark case that will determine if doctors must obtain consent before removing life support from a patient.

In this case, doctors refused to obtain consent before deciding to terminate life support and they refused to apply to the Consent and Capacity Board, the body charged with oversight, in Ontario of such matters.

Hugh Scher

The family was forced to apply for a Court injunction to stop the withdrawal of life support to Mr. Rasouli.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) intervened in this case to support the need for oversight of doctors in addressing life and death decisions.

In this case, Mr. Rasouli was also misdiagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. In fact, he was conscious and able to communicate as his family had suggested throughout.

“The case raises fundamental questions about the need for oversight with respect to critical treatment decisions at the end of life”, says Hugh Scher, the Toronto lawyer that represented EPC at the hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Alex Schadenberg

“There is a real concern about the impact of economic considerations, accuracy of diagnosis and the critical role of patient autonomy in the making of treatment decisions”, says Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of EPC

“We hope the Supreme Court upholds the oversight responsibility of the Consent and Capacity Board and ensures that patient values, beliefs and best interests are given prominence, in conjunction with the clinical considerations of doctors”, says Scher. 

The Supreme Court will likely lay down a set of guiding principles relative to such end of life situations and provide direction in the process of making critical medical treatment decisions.

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition spokespersons:

Hugh Scher, (Toronto) EPC Legal Counsel: (416) 816-6115 / hugh@sdlaw.ca

Alex Schadenberg, EPC Executive Director: (519) 851-1434 / info@epcc.ca

Link to similar articles:

Rasouli case: 'End of life' often really means ending life.

Rasouli case: A strange case to prove a point.

EPC response to the unanimous decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Euthanasia bill defeated in Tasmania.

This message is from Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and the Vice Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia.

The debate in the Tasmanian House of Assembly has just concluded. A torrid few days resulted in the Tasmanian euthanasia bill being defeated 13 to 11.

It is with a very deep sense of relief that I confirm that the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013 has been defeated!

The vote was extremely close: 13:11 and negatived by one vote.

Tasmania would have become the first Australian state to allow assisted suicide had the bill passed its two houses.

The other side ran a strong campaign and stayed on message throughout - even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

For now, we can share some relief and perhaps even celebration. But please spare a thought for those who supported the bill because of difficult personal circumstances who will now, no doubt, be disappointed and dejected. Our opposition are people too and they deserve the dignity and respect that we seek and demand for the vulnerable and for all in our society.

We can be glad, we should be happy at this outcome, but we should not gloat nor ridicule. Personally, I feel deeply for their loss on this occasion as I know some supporters personally and I have no doubt that they will be deeply disappointed at this time.

REALdignitytas was an essential part of the successful campaign. REALdignitytas is a group of academics and leaders in Tasmania who effectively lobbied politicians.

There have been some great lessons in this debate that need to be digested.

Paul Russell will be speaking at the Euthanasia Symposium 2013 on November 8/9 in Toronto.

Link to other similar articles:
Nitschke's frank admission on Tasmanian radio.
Tasmanian euthanasia bill: "A Recipe for Abuse".
Disability rights group opposes Tasmania euthanasia bill.

Nitschke's frank admissions on Tasmanian radio.

This article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published on October 17, 2013 on the HOPE Australia blog. This article concerns the euthanasia bill that was being debated in the Tasmanian parliament.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell

Philip Nitschke, head of Exit International, is in Hobart to coincide with the debate on Premier Giddings and Nick McKim MP's euthanasia and assisted suicide bill. he is also on a national speaking tour promoting his new biography.

Dr Nitschke gave an interview on local ABC Radio this morning. He was asked at one point by the presenter a question about the possibility of people being pressured into asking for euthanasia. Candid, as he often is, Dr Nitschke after saying the question was 'hard to answer' admitted: 'Can it happen? Of course'.

He then went on to say that he thought the Giddings/McKim legislation was 'very safe' and 'conservative', as it needs to be.' This is something that I would dispute, strongly, but it is, after all, his opinion. He then went on to say, in reference to the legislation, that, 'It might change in the future as people become comfortable with the change.'

Paul Rusell &
Alex Schadenberg
in Tasmania (2012)

Think what you may of Dr Nitschke, he is often refreshingly honest in his commentary. Again, we can take this as opinion, but it does point directly to what the Opposition Leader, Will Hodgeman MP said in his speech yesterday about 'slippery slopes, bracket creep and incremental extension.' MPs know full well that once a bill has been passed, regardless of their intent in supporting it as expressed in the debate, it can progress through amendment bills to places well beyond the original intent. That's just how it is.

The issue of 'Death Tourism' played out in a number of comments during debate yesterday and, as one might expect, Dr Nitschke was mentioned. I think it was Jacquie Petrusma MP who mentioned the possibility of a 'Bed and Breakfast' facility.

Ms Giddings has played down the possibility but the possibility remains. Dr Nitschke confirmed this in his interview adding that he expected some of his patients to move to Tasmania if the bill passes.

Euthanasia Safeguards: "Wishful Thinking"

This letter was written by Catherine Ferrier and published on October 15 in La Presse (in french and google translated into english, with slight edits). 

Catherine Ferrier is responding to her colleague, David Lussier, whose letter "I will support the syringe if..." was published in La Presse on October 11.

Wishful Thinking

Dr Catherine Ferrier

Dear David, I did not have time on Friday to talk to you about your text in La Presse. We were too busy taking care of our patients in the geriatric clinic and our conversation would have risked being long because I am part of the doctors who "unnecessarily scare people" about the legalization of euthanasia.

You explain very precisely under what circumstances you will accept pressing the syringe: end of life, not a temporary motivation, all therapeutic approaches attempted without success, free and informed consent. It seems so simple, how could intelligent and caring doctors oppose it?

I have bad news for you. If these conditions can sometimes exist they represent a very small number of patients, it is impossible to ascertain their existence.

First, there is no scientifically validated criteria for determining whether a patient is able to choose his own death.

Then, if this bill is passed, it will be impossible for you, facing a patient, to ensure that all therapeutic approaches have been tried without success. It will not let you take the time to try because what he wants is to die immediately. If you do not kill him, he will look for someone else to do it, or the system will require you to find someone else .

And how will you know what his motives are? Do you think you can identify deep and hidden behind any request for death motivations? You are geriatrician: you have seen preposterous psycho-social and family situations where you never know who has the patient's best interest at heart while striving to satisfy the psychological needs or - dare we say - money.

How will you know what is said by the family when you're not there? Even a well-intentioned family can unwittingly give the message that the disease of the elderly parent is long and heavy, as they want to return to work, to family, to real life. Who are the least well-meaning relatives? Do you think the patient who wants to die to avoid being a burden to his family will tell you?

I have more bad news for you. You're right that things are very bad in Belgium. Two weeks ago, a Belgian person was euthanized after a sex change operation that failed ("unbearable psychological suffering"). But Quebec promoters of "physician assisted dying" believe it's going very well in Belgium and they modeled their Bill 52 after the Belgian law. Believing that there will be no drift in Quebec reflects not only a baseless optimism, but the so-called psychiatric wishful thinking.

Now that you have announced in the journal your willingness to support the syringe, you may get a line outside your door the day after the adoption of the bill. Despite our differences of opinion, we get along well and I think very highly of you. I do not want you to experience the pain that Belgian and Dutch euthanasia doctors experience.

Yes, it is the physician's duty to relieve suffering with all medical means at their disposal. But killing will never be a medical procedure, even if one day the Quebec National Assembly and the College of Physicians of Quebec report that is.

Dr Ferrier is a leader of the Physicians Alliance for the Total Refusal of Euthanasia in Quebec.

Tasmania euthanasia bill: "A Recipe for Abuse."

Originally posted on October 15, 2013 on the HOPE Australia blog

Media Release: Tasmania Euthanasia Bill: "A Recipe for Abuse."

Paul Russell, Director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide calls upon the Tasmanian Parliament to reject the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013 due to be debated soon in the Tasmanian House of Assembly.

“Despite assurances to the contrary, this bill is a recipe for abuse that would effectively abandon the support and protection of vulnerable Tasmanians in some circumstances,” said Mr Russell.

This risk of abuse is in the DNA of all euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation, he said. “The designers of this bill have genetically modified euthanasia and assisted suicide to the point where these terms are not even mentioned[1]; but the reality remains that no legislation can provide the kind of protection from abuse that a just and equitable society demands.”

The modern-day phenomenon that is Elder Abuse should provide a warning. “Tasmania has a significant and growing problem with the abuse of elderly citizens by relatives and carers – usually for financial gain. The cold reality that such abuse and coercion is difficult to detect should tell us that this legislation is a recipe for the ultimate in Elder Abuse.”

The Tasmanian Bill is framed in similar terms to the Belgian Act. “The recent Belgian euthanasia death of the person who experienced a botched sex-change operation and that, earlier this year, of the twins who were going blind could technically be possible under the Tasmanian bill. “The outrage at these incidents even on the part of sections of the Belgian media and medical profession and even though these deaths were within the law should tell us that, even though legislators and the public might think of euthanasia only in terms of the ‘last days’ of a terminal illness, the practice and interpretation of the law is a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle.”

HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide Inc. is a national network of people and organisations who work to oppose euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation.

HOPE is a member of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International based in Canada. Paul Russell is vice chair of the international body.

We must not open the door to euthanasia.

This article was written by Lori Anderson and published in the Scotsman on October 10, 2013. 

The experience of Belgium, which legalised assisted suicide more than a decade ago, is a stark warning, writes Lori Anderson

By Lori Anderson

When I was a child, my father would pretend to smother me with a plastic bag in a game I thought the most tremendous fun. I don’t know when it started, probably when I was seven or eight, but whenever a plastic bag was brought into the house which carried the label “Keep away from children. Danger of asphyxiation”, he would pounce like an intrepid Cato to my Inspector Clouseau. After the comic tussle, we would both dissolve into fits of laughter.

It is a tribute to the defence mechanism within the human mind that sometimes the bleakest subjects can conjure up the happiest memories, but there are those for whom the asphyxiation to be found within a plastic bag is not a danger to be avoided, or the subject of a silly game, but a tragic desire to be actively sought.

Euthanasia has preyed on my mind for the past week, ever since I read about the latest figures from Belgium, where physician-assisted suicide was first legalised in 2002. In the past year, there has been a 25 per cent rise to 1,432, with 2 per cent – or one death in 50 in the country – now the result of euthanasia. The assorted people behind the statistics were illuminated by the tragic case of Nathan Verhelst, a 44-year-old man, who was physically in perfect health but had for years endured emotional pain. Born a girl called Nancy, he later had a sex-change operation that made him, in his own eyes, a “monster”. He gave an insight into his miserable childhood in an interview, saying: “I was the girl that nobody wanted. While my brothers were celebrated, I got a storage room above the garage as a bedroom. ‘If only you had been a boy,’ my mother complained. I was tolerated, nothing more.”

Under Belgian law, candidates for euthanasia have to be over 18 and demonstrate “constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain” resulting from an “accident or incurable illness”. The physician who ended Verhelst’s life, Dr Wim Distelmans, said he had undergone six months of counselling prior to his fatal injection, which was administered a fortnight ago. He explained: “The choice of Nathan Verhelst has nothing to do with fatigue of life. There are other factors that meant he was in a situation with incurable, unbearable suffering. Unbearable suffering for euthanasia can be both physical and psychological. This was a case that clearly met the conditions demanded by the law.”

Marc & Eddy Verbessem

The Belgian state was also supportive of the decision of 45-year-old identical twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem to end their lives. The pair were deaf and had lived and worked together as cobblers, communicating to each other and their immediate family with their own, unique sign language. When told they had glaucoma that would make them go blind, the fear of never being able to see or communicate with one another and the devastating consequences of a new disability that would make them dependent on others for the first time was unacceptable to them. While their local doctor refused to assist their request, they were treated more sympathetically by Dr David Dufour, at the Brussels University Hospital. Before Christmas, having bought new shoes and suits, the twins said farewell to their parents and brother, who were in the room with them and died by lethal injection. Dufour said: “It was a relief to see the end of their suffering. They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well and a rich conversation. The separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful.” He added: “There was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.”

Justice Minister: "Laws surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide exist to protect all Canadians."

Hon. Peter MacKay

Hon. Peter MacKay, Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada commented on the Appeal Court ruling that upheld Canada's laws protecting people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

In a statement issued by his press secretary Paloma Aguilar, Justice Minister Peter MacKay also defended the Appeal Court's ruling.

"The decision made today by the B.C. Court of Appeal reinforces our government’s view that the Criminal Code provisions that prohibit medical professionals, or anyone else, from counselling or providing assistance in a suicide, are constitutionally valid," he said.  

"The laws surrounding euthanasia and assisted suicide exist to protect all Canadians, including those who are most vulnerable."

Link to the Canadian Press video of Hon. Peter MacKay explaining his opposition to legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The case will likely be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Links to similar articles:

BC Court of Appeal upholds protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Canada's federal government will not support assisted suicide.

Canada's Health Minister says no to assisted suicide.

BC Court of Appeal upholds protections in law from euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Supreme Court of Canada is next.

By Alex Schadenberg, executive director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

On Thursday, October 10; the British Columbia (BC) Court of Appeal upheld Canada’s laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide, in a 2 to 1 decision by overturneding the disturbing lower court decision in 2012 by Justice Smith in the Carter case.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), who intervened in the Carter case, applauded the BC Court of Appeal decision by stating:

“EPC is pleased that the Court has followed the lead of Canadian Parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada, and of the majority of Parliaments and Supreme Courts around the world in finding that the prohibitions against assisted suicide represent an important protection against abuse of vulnerable people.”

The Carter case, was launched by the family of Kay Carter, a woman who died by assisted suicide in 2010 in Switzerland. The Carter family claimed that Kay was denied the “right” to die with dignity in Canada and her family were forced to break the law by assisting her travel to Switzerland for suicide. The BC Civil Liberties Association represented the Carter family.

On June 15, 2012, Justice Smith wrongly decided that Canada’s assisted suicide law was unconstitutional. Smith found that people with disabilities who are unable to kill themselves by suicide without assistance were discriminated by the law. 

Smith also decided that “safeguards” can effectively protect vulnerable people. Smith gave parliament one year to pass a law allowing assisted suicide and a limited form of euthanasia in Canada.

Fortunately, the federal government appealed the decision of Justice Smith to the BC Court of Appeal.

The BC Court of Appeal found that Smith did not have the right to strike down Canada’s assisted suicide law and that she made several errors and incorrect assumptions in her decision.

The BC Court of Appeal stated that Smith was wrong when she found that the circumstances had sufficiently changed since 1993, giving her the right to strike down the 1993 Rodriguez decision.

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Canada’s assisted suicide law in the Rodriguez case, a case that was based on Sue Rodriguez. Rodriguez, who was living with ALS, petitioned the courts to grant her the right to die by assisted suicide.

The BC Court of Appeal also found that Smith was wrong when she assumed that the Rodriguez decision did not consider certain constitutional analysis. The BC Court of Appeal concluded that only the Supreme Court of Canada has the right to overturn its decisions.

The BC Court of Appeal decision challenged Smith’s assertion that Canada’s assisted suicide law discriminates against people with disabilities. The majority stated that:

“those who have only a limited ability to enjoy life are not less alive and have no less a right to life, than able-bodied and fully competent persons.

EPC was pleased that the BC Court of Appeal recognized that Canada’s laws prohibiting assisted suicide meet the legislative objective that is grounded in respect for and the desire to protect human life and the current assisted suicide law is rationally connected to its purpose.

The BC Court of Appeal also acknowledged that parliament had recently considered a bill (Bill C-384) that would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. On April 21, 2010, parliament overwhelmingly defeated Bill C-384 by a vote of 228 to 59.

The BC Civil Liberties Association announced that it will appeal the BC Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) will seek to intervene, if the Supreme Court of Canada decides to hear the Carter case.

Laws that prohibit euthanasia and/or assisted suicide provide equal protection in law for all people and uphold the safety of all people, in every life conditions, from having their life taken from them.

Dr. Will Johnston, the EPC - BC chair talks about the Carter Case after the BC Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision by upholding Canada's laws protecting Canadians from euthanasia and assisted suicide. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfoA71TGTf0&feature=youtu.be

Links to other similar articles.
EPC applauds BC Court of Appeal ruling  in assisted suicide case.
Irish Supreme Court upholds protections in law from assisted suicide using similar evidence as in the Carter case.
EPC wants BC Court of Appeal to reverse errors by the lower court in Carter case.