The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down Canada’s existing Criminal Code prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide, declaring them to be constitutional rights. Parliament has a year to come up with a replacement law. This ruling follows the pattern of the Supreme Court’s throwing out of Canada’s abortion law in 1988. As I’m sure you are aware, no law has replaced it and Canada is one of the few countries that has no abortion law whatsoever: a baby in the womb can be legally murdered at any stage in its gestation. For those of you in your golden years: don’t get sick and inconveniently occupy a hospital bed: they will be coming for you – and your organs.
Here are some reactions from North American Anglicans.
ACNA’s is straightforward:
The Anglican Church in North America is committed to defending life from conception to natural death.
The Anglican Church of Canada has a diversity of opinions on the matter, “diversity” being the only intact dogma left in the ACoC.
Care in Dying: A Consideration of the Practices of Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide was published in 2000 and commended for study across the church by General Synod. While acknowledging the diversity of opinions on the matter within the church, the report suggested that the church should “oppose any shift in public policy leading to the legalization of euthanasia in our society at the present time.”
Bishop John Chapman from the Diocese of Ottawa – the bring out your dead diocese – is ecstatic.
I’m ecstatic…Current practice, prior to the new legislation, has been so black and white that it has been unhelpful for those people who are living with unbearable suffering. This new legislation actually now puts the decision back into the hands of the individual, medical professionals, and drawing upon the strength of their faith to make a determination about what action they should take. It’s a compassionate decision.
Funnily enough, just after this ruling descended, Toronto City Council endorsed the proposal to install platform-edge doors in the subway system to prevent suicides. Health regulations dictate that suicides can only be safely prescribed and performed by doctors. The anti-suicide doors will cost around $1billion, apparently. Think of the money saving opportunities in simply wheeling euthanasia candidates onto inward facing ramps on local subway platforms. I understand Bishop Chapman is preparing a generous pastoral response for those eager to participate in missional subway terminations. It’s only a matter of time before this makes it into the Five Marks of Mission.
It is disturbing. How could anybody trust a doctor who believes that assisted suicide is an option?
“My times are in Thy Hand…into Thy Hand I commit my spirit” + Psalm 31:15;5;10;12;24:
The dying Prayer of our LORD and of his first martyr, Stephen + Luke 23:46; + Acts 7:59;
not one’s own hands; and not ‘their’ hands.
The Reverend C.H. Spurgeon makes this Biblical case against all of life’s black or grey temptations, including its last one;
preached on The LORD’s Day at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, May 17 1891.
The ruling has not struck down the ban on euthanasia. Assisted suicide is providing the means to commit suicide. Euthanasia is pushing the button for the person.
Not so. The ruling allows a physician to terminate the life:
Euthanasia definition:
In addition to permitting a doctor to assist a person to take his own life, the striking down of the law also permits a doctor to perform the act on a consenting patient’s behalf. The ruling does permit euthanasia.
There are many articles in the MSM that refer to striking down the law on euthanasia; here, for example.
I think that Vincent is correct. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, there is a distinction between two. Here is a quote directly from their ruling…
“Finally, it is argued that without an absolute prohibition on assisted dying, Canada will descend the slippery slope into euthanasia and condoned murder….The trial judge, after an exhaustive review of the evidence, rejected the argument that adoption of a regulatory regime would initiate a descent down a slippery slope into homicide…We find no error in the trial judge’s analysis of minimal impairment.”
I am absolutely correct. This distinction has been discussed at length in the French-speaking media for the last week. Most commenters were astonished when the lawyer or doctor being interviewed explained the difference. Doesn’t feed into the narrative, of course.
At the very least the ruling does not _clearly_ strike down the ban on euthanasia.
But, Vincent, you haven’t addressed any of the concerns of Bishop Charlie’s letter, or of Alex Shadenberg of the National Post referenced in David’s comment or, for that matter, Kate’s comment below. All you have basically argued is that the Supreme Court means to keep assisted suicide and euthanasia separate from each other. Yet in other countries that have gone ahead with assisted suicide this has not been possible.
To the point that at least one country has mobile units to come and assist when the person’s doctor refuses because there is no good reason.
Vincent and Ed,
To add to what others have said, section 14 of the law that has been struck down refers explicitly to euthanasia:
It is perfectly clear: in the absence of the law that was struck down, euthanasia will be legal.
The Health Law Institute, Dalhousie University agrees:
If I were a disabled person I would be very worried right now. How long before ‘we can’t really afford to keep you alive’ pressures start to happen, I wonder?
The difference between the AcoC and the ACNA is rather telling:
The AcoC prefers to talk with a clear indication of which side of the issue it prefers. If past behaviour is any indication of what their motives are it is obvious that the purpose of talking is to convince the hold outs on the other side that they are being “included”, “accommodated”, and “listened to”, at the end of which it is hoped that the hold outs will give in and give up yet remain members.
The ACNA is Faithful to God and openly proclaims the truth.
What about insurance companies that have a policy of not paying out on suicide death. so now we will who can terminate your life in the beginning and in the end, they get you coming and going.
A nice comparison. But when will the state euthanase ACoC?
Well done, David!