Critical Thinking on Assisted Suicide

This paper analyzes the case of Sue Rodriguez v. the attorney general of Canada and how her rights were violated in the context of assisted suicide. It discusses the legal arguments, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the implications of the case.

Surname 1
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Critical Thinking on Assisted Suicide
Introduction
Assisted suicide is a situation where an individual is aided to death by another. This paper
analyses the case of sue Rodriguez v. the attorney general of Canada and how her rights were
violated. A forty-two-year-old woman Suez Rodriguez of Canada married with an eight and a
half old kid is suffering from a terminal illness. The disease is described as amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, and her life expectancy is two to fourteen months. She wishes to have her life
terminated at her time of choosing by a qualified physician considering her condition is fast
deteriorating and will not able to swallow, walk, speak and make body movements without aid.
However,it is illegal according to section 241(b) of the criminal code,for a person to assist
another in committing suicide.Sue Rodriguez tried to have section241(b) done away with under
the rights and freedoms charter of canada through the supreme court of British of Columbia.The
application was dismissed and upheld Justice Sopinka's ruling. Ms. Rogdriguez, not satisfied
with the verdict, she appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court. Her argument was that according
to rights and freedoms charter of Canada sections 7, 12, and 15 were violated by the decision.

Surname 2
Section 241(b) was found to be constitutional in a decision of five to four. Hence the appeal was
overruled by Supreme Court of Canada.
Justice Sopinka Decision
The bone of contention was whether section 7 of the charter was being contradicted by
section 241(b) of the criminal code. Section 241(b) provides that: "any individual who aids or
abets a person to commit suicide, whether it ensues or not is guilty of an offense and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years." Section 7 provides that: "Everyone has
the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except
in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (Beschle). Ms. Rodriguez argued she
was deprived of her liberty and security as constituted in section 7 of the charter.
The majority had to deal with whether Ms. Rodriguez security of the person had been
violated. The process evoked two thought criteria which the court examined values related to the
individual and limitations on those values when valued in conjunction with the principals of
fundamental justice (Beschle). Justice Sopinka rejected Ms. Rodriguez's contention in that she
was choosing the time and mode of her death instead of death itself hence contended death over
life, and as a result, life as a value presenting itself thereon in section 7.
Security of the person includes personal autonomy, at least concerning the right to make
choices regarding one's own body, control over physical and psychological integrity, and basic
human dignity. At least to the extent of freedom from criminal prohibitions which interfere with
these" (Downie). As a result, they held that Ms. Rodriguez's security of the person was deprived
by section 241(b) because her ability to control decisions about her body resulted to her
psychological stress and physical pain.

Surname 3
According to principles of fundamental justice was Ms. Rodriguez deprived of her security of the
person? And is a person mentally right but terminally unable to terminate his/her own life
contrary to the fundamental principles?
Principles of fundamental justice are challenging to determine, noted Justice Sopinka.
Hence the principles are arrived at by weighing the state's interests to those of an individual.
According to section 241(b), the majority noted the state had a duty to protect human life, hence
an individual in his/her very state of considering suicide as an option, the state has an obligation
to protect that person.
Principles are not static so is the principle of sanctity of life. They are changed over time
to accommodate other values and notions. Attempted suicide is no longer considered a criminal
offense. In Canada, it is the right of a patient to choose not to have his/her medication or
discontinue the medication even if it may cause death.
However, despite these changes, there is a tendency not to accept aiding/abetting to end
human life. The majority argued it is due to the belief that it is legally and morally wrong. In
conclusion, the majority upheld section 241, in that one Justice Sopinka noted that "it is that
human life must be respected (p.35 of the reasons for judgment). Secondly, the state condoning
assisted suicide erodes the principle of sanctity of life, would not be performing its duty in
protecting the vulnerable. The state would be allowing capital punishment and also portray the
state as legalizing suicide.
12 states that "each person has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual
treatment or punishment." Ms. Rodriguez argument that section 12 subjected her to a long period
of suffering since she had to wait until natural death occurs while in pain. The majority reasoned

Surname 4
that a decree by the state does not amount to "treatment" under section 12. Hence state did not
have the essential control over matter and therefore stated that section 241(b) did conform to
section 12 of the charter.
Section 15
Every person is equal before the law and have equivalent benefit and protection without
favour. The law should not discriminate particularly by race, nationality or ethnicity,
colour,faith,age, gender, physical or mental disability (Downie).Concerning the issue of Sue
Rodriguez being infringed by section 15, is that this is sorted out in section 1. Justice Sopinka
explained that protection of persons from others with intentions to control their lives was the role
of section 241(b).
Madam Justice McLachlan's (Dissenting Opinion)
For Madam Justice McLachlan's though section 7 to security is infringed on by section 241(b),
does not agree that the conflict is in agreement with the fundamental justice principles (Vanhala).
On dissenting, she argued that a person’s security embraces an individual’s right in decisions
made about his or her body that is limited by section 241(b). As much as it is the state's duty to
protect people’s lives, it cannot criminalize all acts leading to the death of another person
(Schafer). For passive and active interventions to terminate life, Madam Justice McLachlin
rejected the distinction as it does not matter if the justification to end life is enforced.
Madam Justice McLachlin stated that section 241(b) could not be saved under section 1
of the charter. She cited the objective of 241(b) and if it was justified to overshadow
infringement to a person's rights. She concluded that the objective was to prevent abuses

Surname 5
resulting in the death of persons who had not truly and voluntarily agreed to die. She suggested
issues of abuse be dealt with under set provisions of the criminal code.
In conclusion madam, Justice McLachlin stated that the distinction between legal suicide
and illegal assisted suicide infringed on Ms. Rodriguez right to exercise control over her body
hence violating the principle of fundamental justice opposed to section 7 of the charter
(Vanhala). Madam Justice McLachlin held that court requires orders to allow assisted suicide as
per individual cases.
Evaluation
The law is not consistent and creates inequality, as it allows people in the same condition
to choose not have their medication, request to be removed from life support machines, use
palliative drugs but not grant them right to physicians’ assistance to die. This denies the right to
exercise control over their bodies hence contravening section 7 of the charter as cited by Justice
McLachlin. The law is letting persons endure the pain trenches on their security of the person.
Actions of assisted death should be legalized, and code of its practice formulated such
that human suffering is alleviated and a person dies legally.The seven conditions stressed by
Chief Justice Lamer and Madam Justice McLachlin argument then gives persons an opportunity
to die in dignity and no further severe pain caused by the illness taken care of section 7 of the
charter. Security of a person allows an individual to have personal decisions about his body
which is limited by section 241(b) on such personal liberty.

Surname 6
Works Cited
Beschle, Donald L. "Carter v. Canada (Attorney General): Canadian courts revisit the
criminalization of assisted suicide." Wayne L. Rev. 59 (2013): 561.
Downie, Jocelyn, and Simone Bern. "Rodriguez redux." Health LJ 16 (2008): 27.
Chan, Benny, and Margaret Somerville. "CONVERTING THE ‘RIGHT TO LIFE’TO THE
‘RIGHT TO PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA’: AN
ANALYSIS OF CARTER V CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL), SUPREME
COURT OF CANADA." Medical law review 24.2 (2016): 143-175.
Dudley, Nigel, and Sue Stolton. Arguments for protected areas: multiple benefits for
conservation and use. Routledge, 2010.
Schafer, Arthur. "Physician assisted suicide: the great Canadian euthanasia
debate." International journal of law and psychiatry 36.5-6 (2013): 522-531.
Schafer, Arthur. "Physician assisted suicide: the great Canadian euthanasia
debate." International journal of law and psychiatry 36.5-6 (2013): 522-531.
Sheehy, Elizabeth. "Battered women and mandatory minimum sentences." Osgoode Hall LJ 39
(2001): 529.
Vanhala, Lisa. "Twenty-five years of disability equality? Interpreting disability rights in the
Supreme Court of Canada." Common Law World Review 39.1 (2010): 27-47.