POLSCI 3FR3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Spinal Stenosis, Fundamental Justice, Henry Morgentaler
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
3RF3 Charter of Rights and Freedom
Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person !
-Exam question will be on Section 7 (hypothetical on sec. 7 next Thursday)!
ā¢It is incumbent upon the right claimant to demonstrate that their violation of
life or liberty or security was not in accordance with fundamental justice!
-Section 7 Scope (violation of right if state tries to prolong life)!
-Directly or Indirectly Cause Death or Increased Risk of Death!
ā¢Carter v. Canada, 2015 (Can the state prevent you from having someone else
help you end your life?)!
-Mrs. Carter spinal stenosis suļ¬ered Mrs. Taylor, MLS!
ā¢Both of them made a case arguing that the law prohibiting assisted
suicide violated Sec. 7!
ā¢Modiļ¬ed the argument to be: when the government increases the risk
that someone will die, that is a violation of their life, !
ā¢SCC agreed !
ā¢Not only can state not prolong it or stop you from ending it, where the
state puts in place the circumstances in which the state increases the risk
of deathā¦!
ā¢She was under no risk of death, but without assistance she would commit
suicide earlier, the state was forcing her to take her life earlier, increased
risk of death cause by the state !
ā¢Government of canada lost section 1 not on the legal argument but on
the evidentiary one, other jurisdictions have been dealing with assisted
suicide for 20 years, and have navigated the slippery slope problem,
Quebec, Netherlands, etc. (Minimal impairment)!
-Liberty!
ā¢Deļ¬nition of Liberty!
$1
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Exam question will be on section 7 (hypothetical on sec. 7 next thursday: it is incumbent upon the right claimant to demonstrate that their violation of life or liberty or security was not in accordance with fundamental justice. Section 7 scope (violation of right if state tries to prolong life) Directly or indirectly cause death or increased risk of death: carter v. canada, 2015 (can the state prevent you from having someone else help you end your life?) Mrs. carter spinal stenosis su ered mrs. taylor, mls: both of them made a case arguing that the law prohibiting assisted suicide violated sec. Test 1: freedom from physical restraint (any law that provides a potential restraint (any criminal o ence that can incarcerate you, but most if not all are in accordance with fundamental justice) No nes, they do not count for liberty: re: bc motor vehicles, 1985. The distinction was made as being physically being unable to move.