Suchergebnisse

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) has received considerable attention from many in the field of bioethics. Philosophers, theologians, lawyers, and clinicians of all sorts have engaged with many challenging aspects of this issue. Public debate, public policy, and the law have been enhanced by the varied disciplinary analyses. With the legalization of MAiD in Canada, some attention is now being turned to issues that have historically been overshadowed by the debate about whether to permit MAiD. One such issue is voluntary stopping eating and drinking (VSED) as an alternative to MAiD. In this paper, I will apply a legal lens to the issue. An understanding of whether VSED is legal provides a foundation for ethical reflection on whether it ought to be permitted. Is it permitted for those who prefer VSED to MAiD? Is it permitted for those who do not qualify for MAiD under our current legislation – for those who do not have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, for mature minors, for individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder and who do not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria, and for individuals who have lost capacity but had completed an advance directive? ; 'assistance médicale à mourir (AMM) a reçu beaucoup d'attention de la part de nombreux acteurs dans le domaine de la bioéthique. Des philosophes, des théologiens, des avocats et des cliniciens de toutes sortes ont abordé de nombreux aspects difficiles de cette question. Le débat public, la politique publique et la loi ont été renforcés par des analyses disciplinaires variées. Avec la légalisation du AMM au Canada, on s'intéresse maintenant à des questions qui ont toujours été éclipsées par le débat sur l'autorisation de l'AMM. Un de ces problèmes est l'arrêt volontaire de manger et boire (AVMB) comme une alternative à l'AMM. Dans cet article, je vais appliquer une perspective légale à la question. Une compréhension des aspects légaux de l'AVMB permet d'établir les fondements d'une réflexion éthique au sujet de son autorisation. Est-il permis pour ceux qui préfèrent l'AVMB à l'AMM? Est-il permis pour ceux qui ne sont pas admissibles à l'AMM en vertu de notre législation actuelle – pour ceux qui n'ont pas de maladie grave et irrémédiable, pour les mineurs matures, pour les personnes dont la seule condition médicale sous-jacente est un trouble mental et qui ne rencontrent pas les critères d'admissibilité, et pour les personnes ayant perdu leur capacité, mais ayant rempli une directive préalable?

An amendment to the federal medical assistance in dying (MAID) legislation is causing extended suffering and should be undone.

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) has received considerable attention from many in the field of bioethics. Philosophers, theologians, lawyers, and clinicians of all sorts have engaged with many challenging aspects of this issue. Public debate, public policy, and the law have been enhanced by the varied disciplinary analyses. With the legalization of MAiD in Canada, some attention is now being turned to issues that have historically been overshadowed by the debate about whether to permit MAiD. One such issue is voluntary stopping eating and drinking (VSED) as an alternative to MAiD. In this paper, I will apply a legal lens to the issue. An understanding of whether VSED is legal provides a foundation for ethical reflection on whether it ought to be permitted. Is it permitted for those who prefer VSED to MAiD? Is it permitted for those who do not qualify for MAiD under our current legislation – for those who do not have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, for mature minors, for individuals whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder and who do not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria, and for individuals who have lost capacity but had completed an advance directive? ; 'assistance médicale à mourir (AMM) a reçu beaucoup d'attention de la part de nombreux acteurs dans le domaine de la bioéthique. Des philosophes, des théologiens, des avocats et des cliniciens de toutes sortes ont abordé de nombreux aspects difficiles de cette question. Le débat public, la politique publique et la loi ont été renforcés par des analyses disciplinaires variées. Avec la légalisation du AMM au Canada, on s'intéresse maintenant à des questions qui ont toujours été éclipsées par le débat sur l'autorisation de l'AMM. Un de ces problèmes est l'arrêt volontaire de manger et boire (AVMB) comme une alternative à l'AMM. Dans cet article, je vais appliquer une perspective légale à la question. Une compréhension des aspects légaux de l'AVMB permet d'établir les fondements d'une réflexion éthique au sujet de son ...

Jocelyn Downie describes the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in A.B. v. The Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General for Ontario, which provides an interpretation of "reasonably foreseeable natural death" within the Canadian federal legislation on medical assistance in dying (MAiD).

With the coming into force of federal legislation permitting medical assistance in dying (MAiD) last June, the provinces and territories faced a challenge: how to reconcile the interests of faith-based healthcare institutions with those of patients.

End of life law and policy reform is the subject of much discussion around the world. This paper explores the pathways to permissive legal regimes that have been tried in various common law jurisdictions. These include legislation, prosecutorial charging guidelines, court challenges, jury nullification, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the absence of offence-specific charging guidelines, and the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing. In this paper, I describe these pathways as taken (or attempted) in five common law jurisdictions (USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) and reflect briefly on lessons that can be drawn from the recent experiences with law reform in Canada. Through its bird's eye view, it highlights the remarkable number and variable nature of past attempts at law reform and suggests a shifting tide. It debunks some common myths that have either limited or stymied reform in the past. Finally, it illuminates jurisdictional similarities and differences and lessons learned by those who have gone before so as to inform choices about pathways to pursue for those who will seek to advance a law reform agenda in the future.

This book addresses the problem of how to make democratically-legitimate public policy on issues of contentious bioethical debate. It focuses on ethical contests about research and their legitimate resolution, while addressing questions of political legitimacy. How should states make public policy on issues where there is ethical disagreement, not only about appropriate outcomes, but even what values are at stake? What constitutes justified, democratic policy in such conflicted domains? Case studies from Canada and Australia demonstrate that two countries sharing historical and institutional characteristics can reach different policy responses.This book is of interest to policymakers, bioethicists, and philosophers, and will deepen our understanding of the interactions between large-scale socio-political forces and detailed policy problems in bioethics.co-author: Cheluchi Onyemelukwe

The Supreme Court of Canada is considering whether to strike down the Criminal Code prohibitions on assisted dying. The Quebec legislature has passed "An Act respecting end-of-life care" to permit medical aid in dying. Draft legislation has been introduced in both the House of Commons and the Senate.Professor Jocelyn Downie will talk about these major developments in the law on assisted dying, and invite us to think about some of the open questions still to be answered.

On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously declared that the Criminal Code prohibitions on physician-assisted dying (both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia) violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They immediately suspended the declaration for 12 months thus allowing the government time to craft new legislation. This paper is a contribution to the project of meeting that deadline -- it presents draft federal legislation. This draft legislation is based on: 1) a thorough review of existing legislation in all permissive regimes throughout the world (reviewed through a "lessons learned" lens); and 2) the requirements for constitutional validity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General). Specifically, physician-assisted dying includes both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. Access is limited to assistance provided by physicians to competent adults who have a grievous condition (including illness, disease or disability) that cannot be alleviated by means acceptable to the person and causes enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. Access is not permitted for children or incompetent individuals (either through an advance directive or substitute decision-maker). Assisted dying is only permitted with the free and informed consent of the individual. Procedural safeguards and a national oversight system are established.