[Right_to_die] Take euthanasia out of the Canadian criminal code, says prof.

[World right-to-die news list (nonprofit)]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Lawyer journal carried this article on 29 Dec 10:

De-criminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, says law prof

     Written by  Olivia D’Orazio

Euthanasia and assisted suicide should be taken out of the Criminal 
Code, argues law professor Jocelyn Downie.

Downie will be giving a lecture at McGill University on Jan. 13 and says 
she will not only review where Canadian laws currently stand on these 
issues, but also suggest the need for law reform.

“My ideal [situation] would be that it, euthanasia and assisted suicide, 
be taken out of the Criminal Code and be handled through a commission 
that oversees what’s going on and sets out very clear standards under 
which euthanasia or assisted suicide can be practised,” she says.

The lecture is co-sponsored by the McGill Research Group on Health and 
Law and the McGill Biomedical Ethics Unit.

This lecture comes on the heels of public hearings on euthanasia in 
Quebec and a new poll commissioned by the CBC and Radio-Canada. The poll 
revealed that 83 per cent of Quebeckers support euthanasia and assisted 
suicide. However, a minority would not consider this end-of-life option 
for themselves or a loved one.

Currently, the Criminal Code prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide. 
Section 14 states: “No person is entitled to consent to have death 
inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal 
responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the 
person by whom consent is given.”

Section 241 takes a stronger position on assisted suicide, stating: 
“Every one who counsels a person to commit suicide, or aids or abets a 
person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an 
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 
fourteen years.”

“It’s a bit of a mixed bag, because it’s very clearly illegal, both 
assisted suicide and euthanasia,” says Downie, who holds the Canadian 
Research Chair in Health Law and Policy. “But then if you look at all 
the cases . . . you don’t see 100 per cent of the people, or anywhere 
close, being charged, prosecuted, and then sent to jail. So there’s a 
bit of a disconnect between what seems to be a very strictly prohibited 
regime and a regime in which . . . there are plea bargains being 
accepted, people aren’t even being charged and so on.”

One of the most prominent euthanasia and assisted suicide cases in 
Canada is the Sue Rodriguez case. Rodriguez challenged the Criminal 
Code, claiming its prohibition of assisted suicide violated her Charter 
rights. In 1993, despite a close decision, Rodriguez lost her case at 
the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1994, she took her own life with the 
help of a physician. An investigation into her death ensued, but no 
arrests or charges were made. Many supporters of the legalization of 
euthanasia and assisted suicide consider this a landmark case in 
promoting the importance of this issue.

Downie says Canada can look at other countries or states as models for 
new laws in this area. She points to Belgium, the Netherlands, 
Washington, Oregon, and, most recently, Montana.

Oregon has strict guidelines when it comes to allowing 
physician-assisted suicide. To be considered for physician-assisted 
suicide, a patient must be at least 18 years old, be a resident of 
Oregon, be capable of making and communicating health-care decisions, 
and be diagnosed with a terminal illness which will lead to death within 
six months. After these criteria are met, a patient must make a series 
of requests to his or her physician, who must then consult with at least 
one other physician. The patient may be required to undergo 
psychological testing. Several other criteria and requirements also 
exist. In 2008, only 88 prescriptions were written for lethal 
medications under the state’s Death with Dignity Act, and only 54 
patients carried out their plans for physician-assisted suicide.

“A lot of people don’t think that they would feel it to be necessary, 
and not very many people would actually avail themselves of it were it 
available,” says Downie. “For one thing, it brings an enormous amount of 
comfort to people knowing that it is legal because then they know they 
have a way out . . . [even if] they may not actually need to exercise that.

“You want it to be there, but you certainly hope you’ll never have to 
use it.”

As with any highly controversial issue, the public has provided 
passionate commentary on the legalization of euthanasia and assisted 
suicide. Much of the opposition point to the “slippery slope” argument: 
once euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized, the vulnerable — the 
elderly, the disabled, the mentally challenged — will be taken advantage 
of. Downie argues that there is no evidence of this.

“I’m not sure how familiar people are with the data and the evidence 
that’s coming out of countries that have started to allow euthanasia and 
assisted suicide,” she says. “People still make the ‘slippery slope’ 
argument . . . but there’s no evidence for this.”

Regardless of the outcome, Downie applauds Quebec for drawing attention 
to this highly charged, yet important issue.

Downie is currently a professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax in 
the faculties of both law and medicine. She has published much 
literature on this topic, including Dying Justice: A Case for 
Decriminalizing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada.

McGill’s annual lecture in health and law, “Just dying: A discussion of 
euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the law,” takes place Jan. 13 at 4:30 
p.m. at Day, Chancellor, Hall, room 312, 3644 Peel St., Montreal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------