What do you think?
Rate this book
The Right to Die: The courageous Canadians who gave us the right to a dignified death
"Who owns my life?" Sue Rodriguez was dying of a form of ALS (or Lou Gehrig's disease) when she asked this question of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993. She was fighting for the right to a physician-assisted death before she became fully paralyzed. At the time, assisted suicide could result in jail time for the participating physician. In a narrow decision, Rodriguez lost her case. She died in 1994. In a historic reversal, in 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada changed its mind. The court ruled that Canadians suffering unbearably from illness or disease do not have a duty to live. The landmark, unanimous decision was the culmination of two decades during which public opinion came to favour assisted suicide. The shift was the result of the efforts of courageous Canadians who asked for the right to a dignified death. In this book, Gary Bauslaugh tells their stories. Among those whose stories are told
- GenresBook Club
296 pages, Hardcover
Published April 1, 2016
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
September 13, 2016http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2016/0...
Author article by Gary Bauslaugh
It could have been so simple.
The Supreme Court of Canada made a clear ruling on assisted death and all the Liberals had to do was construct legislation that was in compliance with that ruling. The heavy lifting was already done.
There will always be complaining from those who, mostly on religious grounds, oppose any form of assisted death. But here, in a strong, unambiguous, unanimous ruling by our highest Court, the Liberals were completely free to pass progressive new legislation; indeed they were required to do so. All they had to do was comply with the Court's assessment of Constitutional obligations.
In tennis they call it an unforced error -- like hitting an easy return out of bounds, or double faulting services. It is not a mistake caused by good play by an opponent; it is mistake all of one's own.
Most of the proposed Bill C-14 was okay -- not brilliant but acceptable. But there was one grievous and apparently irremediable error. The Liberals insisted that eligibility for assisted death must be limited to those for whom death is already "reasonably foreseeable" -- an odd phrase that seems to imply that assisted death can only be granted to those who are close to death.
Read more here: http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2016/0...
Author article by Gary Bauslaugh
It could have been so simple.
The Supreme Court of Canada made a clear ruling on assisted death and all the Liberals had to do was construct legislation that was in compliance with that ruling. The heavy lifting was already done.
There will always be complaining from those who, mostly on religious grounds, oppose any form of assisted death. But here, in a strong, unambiguous, unanimous ruling by our highest Court, the Liberals were completely free to pass progressive new legislation; indeed they were required to do so. All they had to do was comply with the Court's assessment of Constitutional obligations.
In tennis they call it an unforced error -- like hitting an easy return out of bounds, or double faulting services. It is not a mistake caused by good play by an opponent; it is mistake all of one's own.
Most of the proposed Bill C-14 was okay -- not brilliant but acceptable. But there was one grievous and apparently irremediable error. The Liberals insisted that eligibility for assisted death must be limited to those for whom death is already "reasonably foreseeable" -- an odd phrase that seems to imply that assisted death can only be granted to those who are close to death.
Read more here: http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2016/0...
Displaying 1 of 1 review