Dying Justice: A Case for Decriminalizing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada
Description
Contains Bibliography, Index
$50.00
ISBN 0-8020-3760-7
DDC 344.71'04197
Author
Publisher
Year
Contributor
Alan Belk, Ph.D., is a member of the Philosophy Department at the
University of Guelph.
Review
Writers on the ethics of euthanasia often give short shrift to the legal
framework surrounding it, probably with good reason. The law is often
unclear, contradictory, and not consistently applied. Under Canada’s
Criminal Code, euthanasia (bringing about the death of another person)
is considered murder, but of the 10 examples presented in this book only
Robert Latimer was convicted of murder. The law is also a patchwork of
case law and common law: we have a common-law right to refuse treatment
or to have it withdrawn, even if this leads to our death.
The acts of health-care providers are similarly ambiguous. Does one
administer large dosages of drugs to alleviate pain when to do so may
hasten death and possibly risk a criminal charge? And although it is not
a crime to commit suicide, it is a crime to help someone do so, even
though that person may have formed a rational and informed decision but
lacks the means to implement it (e.g., Sue Rodriguez).
Jocelyn Downie is a legal scholar and philosopher who holds a Canada
Research Chair in health law and policy at Dalhousie University. Her
contribution to the “dying” debate is fourfold. First, she teases
out the underlying societal core values of autonomy, dignity, and life
from our complex legal system and shows that for one individual autonomy
is privileged, and that a principle of least harm applies when there is
conflict between individuals’ autonomies.
Second, she argues that assisted suicide and euthanasia are not
different in kind from the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining
treatment and that if the latter are permitted, then so should be the
former. Third, she puts paid to the various slippery slope arguments
that are often brought out to oppose a position such as hers. Finally,
she argues persuasively that to permit withdrawal/withholding of
treatment, but not assisted suicide/euthanasia, is unconstitutional
despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Rodriguez case.
I have rarely read such a clear, well-written exposition.