What a steep decline we have witnessed in Canada’s moral values. First we have the Supreme Court striking down abortion laws and now it has ruled the laws that prevent physician assisted suicide are an infringement of an individual’s rights. What next?
That reverses a Supreme Court ruling of 24 years ago in the Sue Rodriguez case when the court ruled the law is valid in that it gives protection to the weak and vulnerable. Specifically, Mr. Justice Sopinka wrote for the majority decision: The majority noted that the state has a fundamental interest in protecting human life; s. 241(b), which is designed to protect the vulnerable who, in a moment of weakness, might be persuaded to commit suicide, reflects this interest. Rodriguez lost the appeal 5-4. Twenty-four years later the court apparently has now decided the state has no fundamental interest in protecting human life and has ruled, this time in a unanimous decision, that the right to life includes the right to die and the vulnerable can be protected with proper legislation. Oh, sure they can.
The court gave the Government of Canada one year to come up with legislation to change the current law. In the meantime it remains in effect, but do you really think anyone will be prosecuted between now and February 2016 should someone decide to flout the law? The worst case scenario is the federal government doing nothing as it has refused to do anything about abortion. Since the Supreme Court struck down our abortion laws Canada is one of only three countries in the world, China and North Korea are the other two, who have no restrictions of abortion. It is possible in Canada to abort a child at anytime from conception to the day before birth. Of course few, if any, doctors would perform an abortion after the second tri-mester but nothing prevents it.
It’s distressing, if you believe recent polls, a solid majority of Canadians polled believe physician assisted suicide is a basic human right under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Perhaps they should read the comments of Archbishop Daniel Bohan and Archdiocesan Theologian Dr. Brett Salkeld in a story found elsewhere on this site.
The Supreme Court ruling leaves all kinds unanswerable questions: Who interprets the meaning of intolerable, grievous, remediable and what is a competent adult? Whatever the government comes up with, if they come up with anything, will eventually be challenged and the Supreme Court will again be involved. That could be years down the road. Perhaps by that time there’ll be a new set of judges who will bring their own biases and interpretation of the Charter to bear and we’ll get a ruling that gives at least some protection for the vulnerable among us.
