Bill C-14 Argumentative Essay

A number of advocacy organizations have labeled Bill C-14 as being unconstitutional. For example, Peter Hogg, one of the foremost authorities of constitutional law in Canada, said that Bill C-14 is “inconsistent with last year’s landmark Carter decision, which struck down the ban on assisted dying as a violation of the charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.” (Bryden, 2016, p.1). In reply to the government’s argument of creating safeguards for assisted dying, he said that the law goes too far as it restricts a “whole category of people who have won the right” to assisted dying as a result of the Carter case (Bryden, 2016, p.2). Similarly, others criticizers believe that it is unconstitutional to limit who can access physician-assisted dying. They argue that the Court in Carter had already stipulated what conditions are required to permit assisted dying. For example, the government admitted in a case brought before the Alberta Court of Appeal, that the Carter decision does not require an applicant for physician-assisted dying to be at or near the end of life. Critics say this admission clearly illustrates the questionable
Although this bill is regarded as far from perfect, it attempts to strike a balance between protecting individuals and respecting their individual choices in allowing assisted dying in certain circumstances (Chochinov & Frazee, 2016, p. 543). Thus, due to this law, it has been agreed upon that “an individual's choice about the end of [their] life is entitled to respect” and that they are entitled to some form of control over their lives (Tigerstrom, 2015, p.233). In conclusion, as Gloria Taylor said, “I want everybody in this country to live their life as they want to. But for those that ... don't want to continue, that have an incurable illness, [I'm glad] that they have a choice” (Payton, 2015, p.