The movement to bring euthanasia and assisted suicide to Canada has been ongoing for decades. Despite the official legalization of physician-assisted suicide in June 2016, the movement wants more. While Parliament considers a 2018 report on expanding euthanasia, euthanasia advocates are pushing the boundaries of assisted suicide in a legal challenge in the British Columbia courts.

ARPA Canada was an intervenor at the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case that ended the previous ban on euthanasia in Canada. We, and many other human rights advocates, pointed out that once the door is open to allowing some people to kill other people, there is no logical justification to stop it from spreading to less and less “extreme” cases.

Knowing this open door would lead to a further push, we were not surprised to hear of an immediate challenge to the restrictions on euthanasia. Ms. Julia Lamb and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) launched their challenge to Canada’s new assisted suicide legislation mere days after it was passed in 2016. Julia Lamb has spinal muscular atrophy, a progressive neurodegenerative disease, but she is not eligible for assisted suicide because her death is not “reasonably foreseeable,” as required by the current law.

We were not surprised to hear of an immediate challenge to the restrictions on euthanasia

The BCCLA asserts on Lamb’s behalf that “the federal government’s new bill leaves many seriously ill Canadians, like Julia, behind.” The BCCLA’s narrative is that the Supreme Court gave Canadians a “right to die”, which Parliament undermined by adding criteria to the assisted suicide law that the Supreme Court had not mentioned in their Carter ruling. Ms. Lamb argues that by “leaving her behind”, in other words, by delaying her death, this law violates the Charter.

The government is defending the law by pointing out that the Supreme Court decision only declared that a complete prohibition on assisted suicide violated Charter rights. The Supreme Court decision in the Carter case applied to the particular people in that specific case. The court did not, nor could they, prescribe how this would work out for all of Canada. That job was up to Parliament, as the court itself made clear, and so the euthanasia law we now have came about in 2016.

ARPA Canada decided to apply to intervene in the Lamb case, alongside Anchor Canadian Reformed Association for the Handicapped and Bethesda Christian Association. Our application was filed in December 2018 and heard on January 14th, 2019. We are thankful to report that ARPA has been granted intervenor status in this case! This means we will argue, alongside the government, against the expansion of euthanasia in Canada.

We are thankful to report that ARPA has been granted intervenor status in this case!

Along with the Anchor and Bethesda Associations, ARPA Canada will argue that our laws are passed based on moral judgments by Parliament. These judgments rightly include recognizing and protecting the inherent worth of all individuals. An expansion of euthanasia would further undermine the value of life and erode protections for vulnerable people. Any constitutional determinations on the current law need to be made with those moral judgments in mind.

The evidence in the Lamb case will be filed with the court over the next six months. In August, ARPA and other intervenors will appear before the judge to explain what our particular arguments will be in light of the evidence filed. The judge will then decide the length of written and oral argument we will be able to give at the actual trial. The trial is scheduled to start in mid-November 2019.

It is interesting to be in this position of arguing alongside the government in defense of a law we do not support

It is interesting to be in this position of arguing alongside the government in defense of a law we do not support. We must be clear that, while we do not support the law in principle (euthanasia is morally wrong, and it should not be legal in Canada), we are limited to a particular legal question in this court case: should euthanasia be expanded by the courts in Canada? We argue with the government, a firm “No!” It is important that we continue to speak up for the inherent value of human life, and hold back attempts to advance euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. We appreciate your prayers as we review evidence, develop arguments, and keep our focus on speaking up for life as created by God, in His image, and lived in His timing.

There’s been several concerning developments relating to euthanasia in Canada in the past few weeks, and one exciting update as it relates to ARPA and a court case on euthanasia.

In the video below, André touches on two things:

In our documentary “Ending Suffering: The Palliative Alternative” Pieter Harsevoort, who also had spinal muscular atrophy, spoke of his concerns with the legalization of euthanasia in Canada. You can watch the interview with Pieter here.

Click on the video below to watch the update. If you prefer, the full transcript can be found below the video.

***TRANSCRIPT***

ANDRÉ: Hello ARPA friends, I want to update you about our work on the euthanasia file by updating you on two different aspects of it. 

First of all, our response to the CCA report to Parliament on euthanasia expansion, and secondly on our application to intervene on a very important euthanasia case coming out of British Columbia: the Lamb case.

So first of all the CCA report. Back in December, 2018 the CCA tabled the report with Parliament outlining all of the different facts around expanding euthanasia to youth or mature minors, to people with mental disabilities and illnesses, and to people who are requesting MAiD as an advance directive (asking for assisted suicide one day in the future if certain medical changes were to happen to them).

So the initial report that they’ve tabled is well over 900 pages long. I’ve read the executive summary – I’ve got a copy here with me – and in the executive summary, reading through it it was very clear that the experts in Canada who drafted this report are actually quite divided on whether or not and how exactly we should expand euthanasia in Canada.

That shows to me a clash of worldviews, a clash of fundamental assumptions about human rights and about human dignity and autonomy and what needs to be protected when it comes to humans who are vulnerable or perceived to be vulnerable. That clash I think is important for us to recognize because it shows that this debate about euthanasia is not at all settled and it also shows that those who are advocating for greater and greater and greater openness to euthanasia are not going to stop. They’re not going to stop just because the law has been changed once, they want it more and more open.

So we too can’t stop. We are going to take some of these safeguards they talk about in this report and try to apply that to the existing euthanasia law. We don’t need safeguards for the expansion of euthanasia, we need safeguards for the euthanasia law as we have it already. So we’re going to work with this report, and we’re going to bring this to the attention of parliamentarians through 2019 and we want your help with that as well.

It’s not just in Parliament that we’re concerned about and fighting for the protection of human life as it relates to end-of-life care and euthanasia in particular, we are also engaged in the courts. ARPA Canada intervened in the – or applied to intervene – in the Lamb case in British Columbia.

We were just told this week that we’ve been accepted as an intervener in that case. That case too seeks to expand euthanasia in this country, just through the courts. So we are going to bring our intervention, we’re going to bring hopefully our arguments later this year in that case.

The trial is scheduled for the end of November/early December of this year. All kinds of process that we have to go through in the meantime. Evidence has to be tabled and submitted and reviewed, arguments need to be drafted and so on. ARPA’s going to be busy through that as well with the help of some extra legal help in British Columbia.

So, we need your help there too and particularly through your prayers. Prayers for the judge, prayers for the legal team working on our arguments, prayers that justice be done and that protections be upheld for people who have disabilities. And together hopefully through 2019, we can make euthanasia and the protection of human life a big focus of ARPA’s work and of your work as well.

So thanks so much for your support and we look forward to working with you throughout this year. Take care!

Are you interested in working for ARPA?
In this week’s Quick Update Colin talks about a new opening we have in our Ottawa office.
Andre then discusses an exciting development in a case dealing with euthanasia.
Colin also updates us on the results of a few provincial campaigns.

Julia Lamb and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) challenged Canada’s new assisted suicide legislation mere days after it was passed in 2016. Julia Lamb has spinal muscular atrophy, a progressive neurodegenerative disease, but she is not eligible for assisted suicide because her death is not “reasonably foreseeable” as required by the current law.

The BCCLA asserts on Lamb’s behalf that “the federal government’s new bill leaves many seriously ill Canadians, like Julia, behind.” Lamb argues that by “leaving her behind”, or, in other words, by delaying her death, this law violates the Charter.

The courts have yet to hear the substance of this case, however, because it has been tied up with a procedural matter. Lamb argued that the government should be limited in what evidence it can bring by the factual findings from the first assisted suicide case, Carter.

The factual record is important in a constitutional case. It informs the courts not only about the parties bringing the case, but also about broader topics including the impact on palliative care, the results from other countries which have legalized assisted suicide, and the ability of physicians to assess patients’ capacity and vulnerability. Lamb wants to limit the government’s ability to raise these factual questions, claiming they were “authoritatively resolved” in Carter.

The relationship between Parliament and the courts

The BCCLA’s narrative is that Carter created a right to die, which Parliament undermined by adding criteria to the assisted suicide law that the Supreme Court never mentioned. The implication is that Parliament didn’t do what it supposedly had to do, namely implement the Carter decision.

Carter, like all cases, was about the parties involved. This included Gloria Taylor, who had ALS and was suffering severe muscle deterioration. Taylor argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that a complete ban on assisted suicide might pressure someone in her position to “prematurely” take her life before she lost all mobility.

The Supreme Court declared that the complete prohibition on assisted suicide was invalid to the extent that it applied to people like Taylor. That is, to the extent that it applied to people who had a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering. That declaration settled the matter before the court. The court did not, nor could they, prescribe how this would work out for all of Canada. That is up to Parliament.

Parliament, not restricted to an individual scenario, has the duty to consider the impact of euthanasia on medical ethics, health care culture, societal views of the sick or disabled, social acceptance of suicide, and so on. The Supreme Court noted this in the Carter decision, saying, “Parliament…must weigh and balance the perspective of those who might be at risk in a permissive regime against that of those who seek assistance in dying.”

The BCCLA argues that Carter “authoritatively resolved” such matters, but this is beyond what any decision can do. The argument that the Supreme Court resolves issues in such a way that removes Parliament’s ability to consider the broader societal impacts, or in such a way that does not allow new evidence about such impacts, would give unlimited authority to the courts, which the constitution does not. Rather, authority is divided between various Canadian institutions as a way of checking power.

The B.C. Court of Appeal decision

The BC Court of Appeal rejected the BCCLA’s narrative and accepted the government’s argument that because Carter was decided in the context of a complete prohibition on assisted suicide, this new case is different because it challenges a different law. Lamb’s case is not simply a continuation of Carter. Whether Parliament’s new law is constitutional should be determined with a full factual record, not shackled by the evidence in Carter.

While the Court rejected Lamb’s argument to limit the government’s evidence, we expect the lawyers for Lamb and the BCCLA to continue to exaggerate what the Supreme Court did, or could do, in Carter. The BCCLA will continue to argue that Carter dictated how Parliament should legislate and therefore the assisted suicide law must be unconstitutional. The government will have to demonstrate that this misconstrues the courts’ and Parliament’s roles.

While our current law is permissive, we are thankful that the government is resisting this attempt to make it even more permissive and that it has secured the right to introduce new evidence of the harms and abuses associated with legalized euthanasia.

It is our hope that this case will be resolved in a way that limits the harms of assisted suicide and honours the distinct roles of Parliament and the courts.

Take action

It is no surprise that assisted suicide is back in the courts. But we must not neglect to communicate with our elected representatives about this issue. The Council of Canadian Academics, on behalf of the federal government, is currently exploring how access to euthanasia might be broadened to include minors and the mentally ill.

ARPA is updating its Policy Report on Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Our plan is to release it mid-August. Stay tuned, as we will have a new EasyMail and further action items for you then.