OTTAWA, April 13, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The co-chair of the federal committee for euthanasia and assisted suicide is urging the federal government to have the Supreme Court examine its new law governing the deadly practice to determine whether or not it complies with the Charter of Rights.
“Any law presented on assisted dying could benefit from a referral to the Supreme Court,” said Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, co-chair of the committee, to The Canadian Press.
“By enacting the law immediately, we ensure the court's initial challenge to Parliament (to end the ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide) is met. By quickly referring it to the Supreme Court with specific questions, we ensure the law is broad enough to guarantee the rights of all Canadians — without them having to fight their way to the Supreme Court alone,” he added.
In February, the federal committee released a number of controversial recommendations for the new law, including forcing Catholic and Christian hospitals to provide the procedure, forcing pro-life doctors opposed to the practice to provide an “effective referral,” and that “mature minors” be eligible for euthanasia.
But now, with rumors suggesting that the new legislation — which is expected to be released Thursday — may take a less permissive approach in the practice of a doctor ending the of a patient than what Oliphant’s committee suggested, Oliphant himself must place his hope on the Supreme Court to make sure the law is “broad enough.”
Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition said that in a democratic society, Parliament should not be consulting the court when making a new law, but should be consulting the people.
“The court should be refraining from making laws. That is not the role of the court. But, because they have been taking that role, it makes Parliament think that the best way to handle a new law is to consult the court. But Parliament shouldn’t be consulting the court, it should be consulting the Canadian people,” he told LifeSiteNews.
Schadenberg said that the Supreme Court was deliberately vague in defining key terms in its ruling last year. Given the lack of definitions as well as the activist nature of this court, what this means, he said, is that future challenges will necessarily arise, and these will provide the court with opportunities to settle contentious matters in the new law as it pleases.
“There is an activist nature to this court. We intervened throughout and the fact is, this court specifically ignored certain concerns because it didn’t fulfill what the mandate was for them, that is, they wanted to legalize this practice, come what may, and they did it.”
An Angus Reid poll earlier this month showed just how much the committee’s recommendations on regulating assisted suicide and euthanasia are opposed to the thinking of a majority of Canadians.
Most strikingly, 78 percent of those surveyed opposed euthanasia for people who have psychological suffering but are not terminally ill. And 68 percent of respondents opposed forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals to participate in euthanasia and assisted suicide, while 62 percent opposed forcing religiously-affiliated nursing homes to take part in the practice.