CLN4U1 
Rights and Freedoms 
Report 
 

Saruthi Ganesalingam  
04/06/18 
 

 
 

 
 

Introduction:

The case I chose covers the issue of medically-assisted death. A woman named Kay
Carter, who was diagnosed with spinal stenosis, brought this issue into consideration
during 2010-2015. As the days progressed, her condition got worse and her health
began to deteriorate. She decided to arrange for assisted death, as the pain was
intolerable, in Switzerland since it was illegal in Canada. At that time, this act of hers
was against Section 241 and Section 14 of the Criminal code which prohibited assisted
death. After her death, her family chose to address her issue and challenge the
Criminal Code provision in the Supreme Court of Canada. The respondent, in this case,
was the Attorney General of Canada. The plaintiffs argued that the Criminal Code
violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that everyone
has the right to life, liberty and security. In the end, the plaintiffs won the case as the
Criminal Code violated Section 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Discussion​:

This case brought in a new legislation that allows medically-assisted death under
certain conditions. The first condition is that the patient is free from coercion and is not
depressed. The patient must make the decision on their own and should not be
influenced. The second condition is that the patient should be physically disabled or
have a serious illness with no chance of improvement. Their pain must be intolerable
and there’s no medical treatment for that illness. Thus, this case changed a law in
society. Even Though assisted death can be seen as a way to destress the patient, it
can increase the stress and pressure of the family members. Family members who
witnessed the patient’s assisted suicide may experience post-traumatic stress and they
could feel guilty in some ways. This also affects the doctors as some of them might feel
uncomfortable in assisting death. Some may feel emotional burden of participating in
the assisted death and it can affect their practice. The doctors may feel that this new
law corrupts their profession as doctors are meant to save lives. Moreover, another
implication is that doctors will tend to put in less effort to find a cure for the patient’s
distress and they might turn to assisted death as the solution. This connects to the
Change in law concept learned in class. This case is an example of how an individual

1 
 

or group can change a law by taking it to the court. Furthermore, it also connects to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms concept learned in class. In class, we learned about
how the Charter could be used to protect an individual’s rights during a case. We also
learned that Section 1 of the Charter is the Reasonable Limits Clause which means that
one’s rights and freedoms could be limited. This concept applies to this case because
the plaintiffs used the charter for their argument. Also, under Section 1, their right was
limited since certain conditions were put under the right to assisted death. These
conditions connect to the social issues stated above since doctors don’t have to
participate in assisted death if they aren’t comfortable.

Conclusion​:

In conclusion, I believe that this issue is an ongoing debate and it's important to
address this issue as it is relevant in our society. I agree with the final decision made by
the judge. This is because individuals should have the right to life and if they are
suffering intolerable pain, then they should have the choice to end their lives legally. I
think that they would find more peace in dying rather in experiencing awful pain each
day. I also agree with the limitations to this right as some people may abuse it. Many
people who are depressed will turn to assisted death as a solution but that’s basically
suicide and it should be prohibited by these limitations. If I was the judge, I would make
the same decision. I would allow assisted death but with limitations. I would say that the
doctors must look into cures for the illness and if there are absolutely nothing and the
patient cannot handle the pain, then he/she should have the choice of assisted-death.
Only highly trained doctors should participate to avoid implications and if the doctors
should also have the choice of participating.

2