Federal and Provincial Responsibilities to Implement Physician-Assisted Suicide.

Health law in Canada Pub Date : 2016-02-01
David Baker, Gilbert Sharpe, Rebeka Lauks
{"title":"Federal and Provincial Responsibilities to Implement Physician-Assisted Suicide.","authors":"David Baker,&nbsp;Gilbert Sharpe,&nbsp;Rebeka Lauks","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the most significant constitutional decision of the last generation, Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed itself and decided that it was possible for Parliament to enact safeguards that would be adequate to protect persons who are vulnerable in times of weakness, then proceeded to declare that Canadians were entitled to a s. 7 Charter right to physician-assisted death. David Baker and Gilbert Sharpe accepted the challenge issued by the Court and drafted a Bill to amend the Criminal Code in a manner they believed would strike a constitutional balance between providing access to the right declared by the Court and protecting the vulnerable. This article represents their attempt, along with co-author Rebeka Lauks, to explain many of the key provisions in their draft. Amongst the most noteworthy are their attempts to ensure that those choosing PAD are informed about quality of life, as well as treatment choices; to define vulnerability and to install safeguards adequate to protect persons while vulnerable; and finally a prior review process that would ensure both ready access to the Charter right declared by the Court and consistent and transparent application of the law. The authors have attempted to establish an alternative model to that currently in effect in the Benelux countries, which they regard as having been ineffective in achieving any of these objectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":79609,"journal":{"name":"Health law in Canada","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health law in Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the most significant constitutional decision of the last generation, Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed itself and decided that it was possible for Parliament to enact safeguards that would be adequate to protect persons who are vulnerable in times of weakness, then proceeded to declare that Canadians were entitled to a s. 7 Charter right to physician-assisted death. David Baker and Gilbert Sharpe accepted the challenge issued by the Court and drafted a Bill to amend the Criminal Code in a manner they believed would strike a constitutional balance between providing access to the right declared by the Court and protecting the vulnerable. This article represents their attempt, along with co-author Rebeka Lauks, to explain many of the key provisions in their draft. Amongst the most noteworthy are their attempts to ensure that those choosing PAD are informed about quality of life, as well as treatment choices; to define vulnerability and to install safeguards adequate to protect persons while vulnerable; and finally a prior review process that would ensure both ready access to the Charter right declared by the Court and consistent and transparent application of the law. The authors have attempted to establish an alternative model to that currently in effect in the Benelux countries, which they regard as having been ineffective in achieving any of these objectives.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联邦和省实施医生协助自杀的责任。
在上一代最重要的宪法裁决“卡特诉加拿大案”中,加拿大最高法院推翻了自己的判决,决定议会有可能颁布足以保护在虚弱时期易受伤害的人的保障措施,然后宣布加拿大人有权享有《宪章》第7条关于医生协助死亡的权利。David Baker和Gilbert Sharpe接受了法院提出的挑战,并起草了一项法案,以一种他们认为将在提供获得法院宣布的权利和保护弱势群体之间取得宪法平衡的方式修改《刑法》。本文代表了他们与合著者Rebeka Lauks一起解释草案中许多关键条款的尝试。其中最值得注意的是,他们试图确保那些选择PAD的人了解生活质量,以及治疗选择;界定脆弱性,并设置适当的保障措施,以保护易受伤害的人;最后是一个事先审查程序,以确保随时享有法院宣布的《宪章》权利和始终如一和透明地适用法律。作者试图建立一种替代比荷卢三国现行模式的模式,他们认为这种模式在实现上述任何目标方面都是无效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Plutonormativity: Illuminating Inequities in Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. Part III: Occupational Disability Determination/Rehabilitation Best Practices and the Role of Situational Work Assessment and Simulated Work/Academic Trials. A Need to Know Basis? Canadian Federalism and the Disclosure of Egg and Sperm Donor Identities. Issues of Vulnerability and Equality: The Emerging Need for Court Evaluations of Physicians' Fiduciary Duties in High Stakes End-of-Life Decisions. Editorial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1