This week’s Supreme Court hearing on euthanasia was about life and death, of course, but it is equally about a powerful clash of institutions.

By Peter Stockland October 16, 2014

1 minute read

This week’s Supreme Court hearing on euthanasia was about life and death, of course, but it is equally about a powerful clash of institutions.

While the so-called Carter case was argued on the merits of discovering in the Canadian constitution a right to what might be called concierge service suicide, the heart of the discussion was really the balance of power between the courts and Canada’s Parliament.

All constitutional cases, by their nature, engage that balance in differing ways, particularly when they involve the sections of the Charter of Rights dealing with security of the person and equality rights. Yet Wednesday’s forensic test match on euthanasia touched a tipping point that may have been brushed against only 26 years ago in the Morgentaler case on abortion; perhaps not even then.

At least two elements make the Carter case so noteworthy in that regard.

You'll also enjoy...

A Plan to Unmake MAiD

A former veteran Mountie and local coroner has a sure-fire way to protect health care workers from being made to administer MAiD. So why won’t anyone answer Sean Murphy’s call? Peter Stockland reports.

Justin Trudeau's Words to the Wise

The Prime Minister got it right the first time on the limits of free speech. His mistake was backing down in the face of vociferous criticism, Peter Stockland writes.

Rasouli Case a Win for Patient Rights and Beliefs—And Cause for Concern

With this statement, Justice Karakatsanis recognizes the significance of religious beliefs and the importance they play in questions of life and death—but, in spite of this recognition, she jumps straight to a position that places religious beliefs behind the standard of care exercised by doctors Th...