Farewell Foundation For The Right to Die To Challenge Assisted Suicide Rights In B.C. Court

First Posted: 08/01/11 10:44 AM ET Updated: 10/01/11 06:12 AM ET

Sloping Green Roof Bc Supreme Court Building

VANCOUVER - Much has changed in the 18 years since Canada's high court refused Sue Rodriguez the legal right to assisted suicide.

For that reason, the Farewell Foundation For The Right to Die will be renewing the court battle around "self-chosen death" in Canada.

The foundation, on behalf of its 111 members, is in British Columbia Supreme Court Tuesday to start what's expected to be a long legal process ending eventually in Canada's highest court.

Foundation director Russel Ogden said people's opinions have changed since the 1993 Rodriguez decision and many other countries around the world have legalized or regulated the right to die.

"This is such an important question, that it ought to be a question that is decided ultimately by the highest authority in Canada and that is the Supreme Court of Canada," Ogden said.

Rodriguez had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, when Supreme Court judges ruled 5 to 4 against giving her the legal right to die.

Section 241 (b) of Canada's Criminal Code makes it an offence to help in a suicide, punishable by a term of up to 14 years in prison.

"The information that was available to the Supreme Court justices in 1993 simply didn't exist as it does today," Ogden said in an interview.

He said there's a large body of research available now where people can have their right to self determination respected, while vulnerable individuals can also be protected from being coerced into ending their lives against their true wishes.

The federal government has been resistant to social change on issues such as gay marriage, medical marijuana and multiple marriages, Ogden said.

"The only way to achieve reform, we believe, is through a direct challenge within the court. That's why we are arguing that Canada's prohibition against assisted suicide -- which has existed in our criminal code since 1893 -- that that prohibition is unconstitutional."

Lawyers for the foundation and the Attorney General of Canada are expected to spend two days in B.C. Supreme Court in complicated legal arguments.

The foundation is first expected to challenge the B.C. government's refusal to allow it to register as a service. Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada are also expected to dispute the foundation's ability to challenge the section concerning assisted suicide in Canada's Criminal Code.

This isn't the only right-to-die lawsuit going through the B.C. Courts. The daughter of a Kelowna, B.C., woman who went to Switzerland to die has launched a similar case with the help of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

Members of the Farewell Foundation pay a $50 dollar annual membership fee, but wouldn't be charged for any services the foundation proposes to provide.

Ogden said some of the foundation members are healthy, but others are severely ill with terminal cancer, ALS, Parkinson's disease, and many other conditions.

He said the foundation launched the lawsuit on behalf of all its members, so they may remain anonymous.

The New Westminster, B.C., organization has based its procedural safeguards on the Swiss model surrounding self-chosen death "to protect vulnerable people while safeguarding the fundamental right to self-determination."

"Self-chosen death occurs in the matter, time and place decided by the individual who dies," said a draft of the foundation's list of safeguards.

"The decision to die is informed and carefully considered, voluntary, free from inducement, from coercion, free from threats, and free from undue influence. Assistance with a self-chosen death shall not be motivated by personal gain."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

Filed by Lauren Strapagiel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floodberg
Attorney (ret.)
01:21 PM on 08/01/2011
Pros and Cons

I'm not young (widowed, no serious health problems or mental instability, no children), and I've had to deal twice with family members (mother and spouse) with cancer who 'wanted a way out before it got too bad.'  It's very tough, but in both cases the doctors knew the patients well, I had them bring it up in front of their doctors, and I also had a medical power of attorney.  In the case of my spouse, I also had to deal with a medical mistake which forced me to make the call to end life support. 

The right to die brings up a myriad of problems for the patient, their families, and the doctors and lawyers who deal with it. 

I've seen parents of adult children give up fighting, and hand over substantial assets to keep the adult children afloat with the assurance that the kids will help out if it's needed.  Then suddenly when they find themselves in trouble, those lucky adult children say they can't afford to help and walk away.  I've also seen adult children pressure their parents to hand over assets, and demand that they stop 'spending my inheritance.'  My own father dealt with that, and I helped him avoid those pitfalls.  But this kind of pressure doesn't just fall on those with health issues or advanced age.  After my father died, they approached my lawyer asking that my share of his estate along with my personal assets be put in their names in trust 'so they could inherit without a problem,' and of course they'd take care of me.  My lawyer was infuriated, but didn't divulge that my assets are already safely in trust (and out of their reach) and will all go to charity when I pass on.  I was going to retire abroad shortly (which they don't know), but their attitude made it a priority:  they'll have to get foreign counsel and try to fight a long-established trust in a foreign court.

The pressure an adult child can inflict upon a vulnerable, ill patient is appalling, and I know most doctors detest that situation.  Lots of pro bono lawyers are in court dealing representing vulnerable adults in these situations, and they're equally torn on the 'right to die.' 

The emotional pressure a vulnerable adult may be under from family members is the Achilles heel of the Right to Die.
12:21 PM on 08/01/2011
When I can bear life no longer and there is "no cure", even for one day, I will determine the end of my life and NOT another "human being". I will travel to that country that will help me. PERIOD.
canuckjen
A life that is lived is a life of evolution.
10:27 AM on 08/01/2011
Under the conditions cited in this article and adapted from the Swiss model on self-determined death, I am in favour of assisted suicide. I want the legal right to avail myself of that option if I ever was put in a position when assisted death was more humane for me than an inhumane illness and death.
12:22 PM on 08/01/2011
ditto
photo
dennis1943
whatever the voices in my head say.......
10:11 AM on 08/01/2011
Society tells me my expiration date has come and gone................that i have outlived my usefullness..........that the ravages of old age are mine to endure............that the "ravages" are not mine to define............the hopelessness of the situation alone makes me want to say....$#@# it!
12:22 PM on 08/01/2011
ditto