Rodriguez V. Attorney General of British Columbia

Rodriguez v. lawyer General of British Columbia (1993), 85 CCC (3d) 15 (S. C. C. ) Facts * litigate Rodriguez was a 42 year old woman, married with a upstart song and living in British Columbia. * Rodriguez was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis contraryly known as ALS and was given between two and fourteen months left to live. * process Rodriguez knew that because of this disease she would soon lose the use of her muscles, which would encumber her from breathing or eating without medical involvement. work on wants to end her spirit when she is no longer able to enjoy it, however when she reaches this point she pass on no longer be capable of ending her own flavour without assistance. * Rodriguez seeks a licit method which would allow a medical practician to set up a device which allows her to end her own life, when she chooses. * process Rodriguez appealed to the Supreme cost of British Columbia for an order that s. 241 (b) of the Criminal compute be declared i n legitimate pursuant to s. 24 (1) of the postulate, on ground that it violates her rights infra sub fractions 7, 12, and 15 (1) of the Charter. IssuesThe dispute between fulfill Rodriguez and the Supreme Court of British Columbia Does sections 241(b) of the Criminal Code offend or discard the rights and freedoms set aboutd by subsection 7, 12, and 15(1) of the Charter? And if it does, can this be justified nether section 1 of the Charter and therefore be consistent with the physical composition act, 1892? The laws involved include Criminal Code section 241. Everyone who (a) counsels a soul to shoot suicide, or (b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to chains for a term not exceeding fourteen years.As well as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms subsections 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of of import justice. subdivision 12. Everyone had the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual manipulation or punishment. Sue Rodriguez is arguing that the Criminal Code section 241 (b) violates her guaranteed rights and freedoms under subsections 7, 12, and, 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedom because t prevents her from controlling the method and timing of her death. Sue Rodriguez must also prove that her plea is justifiable under section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The questions that need to be answered include, whether or not the appellant is in the right state of mind, does the law against aiding or abetting suicide infringe on the rights and freedoms of humans that are assured by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Should assist suicide be legalized, if the victim requests to die? What solution provides the best song of justice?Murder, Disability, Malpractice, and Cruel and unusual punishment are all legal c oncepts that are involved in this case. A larger stretch forth in society that would be influenced by this case is whether future cases like these exponent feel pressure to take part in doctor assisted suicide in order to make room for healthier people. end In regards to Rodriguez versus Attorney General of British Columbia the motor lodge immovable against Sue Rodriguez. This finale was made based on the face that firearm section 241(b) affects the security interest of the appellant, this denial does not apply to the principles of justice.The homage responded to Rodriguez claim that for the terminally ill the choice of time and carriage is valid because death itself is inevitable, by stating that it is more a matter of choosing death over natural causes. The dissenting opinion was from Madam Justice McLachlin. McLachlin concluded that denying Sue Rodriguez a choice that is available to those who are physically able because of attention that others may suffer pressure to follow her example would conflict with the fundamental principles involved.Madam Justice McLachlin supposed that Sue Rodriguez was being used as a sicken guy for those who might be wrongly counseled to commit suicide and so she sided with Rodriguez. I would have sided with Sue Rodriguez. According to section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. I believe that any average person would fit out that being forced to sit by and watch themselves die teensy by little is cruel treatment. I believe that while its not the courts fault, it is their duty to help those who cant help themselves because of laws.If it were my decision I would have sided with Sue Rodriguez because of the reasons described above. Opinions While thinking some this case I cannot stop contemplating how unfair the entire thing is. Sue Rodriguez was diagnosed with a disease she cannot control, and the one thing she can control (time and manner of her death) is unlawful, therefore she cant legally control that either. I believe this is a very serious issue, but taking away a persons right to die how they so choose because of achievable social influence on future peoples with similar circumstances in extremely unfair.This case is very significant, even today. This can be renowned because of a ruling made by a lower court in the BC Supreme Court on June 15, 2012 that stated a criminal offence prohibiting physician-assisted suicide was unconstitutional on the grounds that denying change people the right to assisted suicide was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of equality under Section 15. Although this ruling will most seeming be appealed, it still shows the validity of the case at hand because the kindred issue is still being argued 19 years later.Opinions on this issue could vary depending on circumstance. People who have been in similar situations or are in similar situ ations would have a very different stance than people who dont have any participation to the courts whatsoever. Also religious peoples might have a different perspective because of bias caused by their religious beliefs. Works Cited Blair, Annice, Kathleen R. Elliot, Bonnie Manning, and Marcus Mossuto. Canadian and worldwide Law. Don Mills Oxford UP, 2004. Print Suicide Legislation. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.