Editor, The News:
Re: Appeal decision on assisted suicide (Letters, June 22).
In Laurie Geschke’s letter on the Gloria Taylor case, she says that “by judicial fiat” an “unelected, appointed individual,” a Supreme Court judge, has overturned the law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide.
In Richard Whalen’s letter, he says much the same thing, complaining about “judicial activism.”
Ms. Geschke and Mr. Whalen are entitled to their opinions on the court’s decision. However, I would like to address their views about the role of the courts under our system of law.
In Canada, our judges are unelected in order to preserve them from any suggestion of bias in their decisions. We do not want any perception that a judge is beholden to any particular interest group or to a government.
One of the roles of our judges is to interpret and apply the laws which government makes. That’s what happens in every court case. Sometimes, when someone complains that a law is unfair, which was Ms. Taylor’s point, the court is also required to assess whether the restrictions imposed by a law comply with the freedoms guaranteed by Canada’s constitution, in particular the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The constitution was written by government and can be changed by government. Unlike our judges, we do elect our governments.
What Justice Smith decided, after hearing from Ms. Taylor’s lawyers and the lawyers for the federal government, was that government’s law did not comply with our constitution. She did not throw the law out, though. She told government how the law does not comply with our constitution and gave government time to fix the problem.
Part of our system of checks and balances is a process in which trial decisions can be challenged before our Court of Appeal, and potentially before the Supreme Court of Canada.
If government believes that Justice Smith made a mistake in how she considered its law, government may appeal her decision.
If Justice Smith’s decision will have the grave repercussions Ms. Geschke suggests, I am certain government will decide to appeal.
John-Paul Boyd
Maple Ridge
In the arms of family
Editor, The News:
Re: Appeal decision on assisted suicide (Letters, June 22).
Thank you, Dr. Marco Terwiel, for your timely and courageous article about assisted suicide and the right to die.
As a senior, this topic is on my mind and on the minds of many of my contemporary friends.
Not too long ago our beloved 14-year-old dog had a heart attack and we had to make the decision to put her out of her misery.
The veterinarian doctor came to our home, injected her and within minutes our dear companion went peacefully to sleep in my arms.
The foremost thought in my mind was, how wonderful it would be to die like that.
We all will die, but how we die should be our right and choice.
When the quality of my life is such that I do not wish to continue to live, I want to have provisions in place that allow me to die with dignity.
Many enlightened countries like Holland and Germany and Switzerland allow assisted suicide under strict regulations, so that this right cannot be abused.
I would like to die in the arms of family and friends and be assisted by my doctor. But I do not want to have to fear that they are prosecuted and put in jail for helping me.
I do not fear dying; I fear mostly of how I may have to die: incapacitated, hooked up to machines, in pain, without control of my functions.
That is not humane.
A law, giving me the choice to end my life in dignity, has to be carefully drafted, so that any abuse can be prevented.
It does not take away your right to hang in there as long as it takes, but it surely would give me peace of mind.
Maria Raynolds
Maple Ridge
Appeal bill
Editor, The News:
Re: Appeal decision on assisted suicide (Letters, June 22).
I have to agree wholehearted with Laurie Geschke’s letter regarding Bill C-384, a bill to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, must be appealed.
The fact that similar bills in the past – C-384 (2010), C-562 (June 2008) and C-407 (June 2005) – were soundly defeated in parliament, tells me that the majority of Canadians do not want assisted suicide and euthanasia taken out of the Criminal Code.
Although the current Bill C-384 bill calls for very strict guidelines and safeguards in evaluating requests for intended death, a look at how the law in the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal for several years, shows that the law has, over time, been interpreted to allow more and more cases (people) being helped along to their demise and often without the consent of the individual.
As a compassionate society, we need to offer those suffering physical and/or mental pain, treatment, support, and pain control, and in the case of dying people, hospice care, which provides all three. We don’t need to offer a lethal injection from the hands of those who were trained to be healers.
L. Draper
Pitt Meadows