For this discussion, I would like you to review the Rodriguez case. It is described in this module's PowerPoint presentation.

What do you think of the Court's decision in this case? How does it connect to the other cases and ideas contained within this module?

The Morgentaler Case One of the more important Section 7 cases was R v. Morgentaler (1988) Involved a challenge to Canada's old abortion laws spearheaded by Dr. Henry Morgentaler Between 1892 and 1969, abortion was illegal and punishable by death in Canada Starting in 1969, abortion was permitted in limited circumstances: (a) in an approved hospital and (b) after a therapeutic committee concluded it was necessary to protect the woman's life or health SCC found this abortion law unconstitutional Today, in Canada, an abortion can legally take place at any time during pregnancyAbortion and Security of the Person What was the court's reasoning? Mainly, it was argued that a woman's \"security of the person\" was violated This was because the abortion law interfered with women's bodies Also pointed out that the abortion law restricted women's ability to make decisions about their own health Only two dissenting judges who argued that there was no basis in Canadian history or traditions to read a right to abortion into the Charter . k P Suicide > Another key Section 7 case addresses the right to assisted suicide, dealt with in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (1993) First, a bit of history on suicide laws o In the Roman world about 2,000 years ago, suicide was actually considered a noble act in certain cases \\ o This changed with the rise of Christianity which prohibits suicide on the grounds that each person belongs to God Reflecting Christian view, attempting suicide made a crime when Canada's criminal laws initially framed in 1892 The law against attempted suicide was repealed in 1972 > But while an individual is legally permitted to attempt his/her own suicide, it is not allowed to obtain someone else's help Sue Rodriguez This prohibition on assisted suicide is what Sue Rodriguez contested She suffered from Lou Gherig's disease Didn't want to live with the worse stages of the disease -- she was worried that as the disease progressed, she would be unable to commit suicide by herself Figured that someone else's help would be required and that the law would preclude her from getting this help Upholding Prohibition of Assisted Suicide SCC did not find the ban on assisted suicide a violation of the Charter Majority conceded that her right to \"security of the person\" was violated by the law. This is because the law: infringed on her ability to make decisions about her own body caused her psychological distress But remember Section 7 states that the right to \"security of the person\" can be deprived if this is done in accord with \"fundamental justice\" The majority of judges argued that \"fundamental justice\" was not violated by the assisted suicide law. Why? No consensus that assisted suicide is morally permissible The law reflects legitimate concern for the sanctity of life U.S. v Burns U.S. vs. Burns (2001) involved the extradition hearings of two 18 year olds living in Canada They were wanted on aggravated first degree murder charges in the American state of & Washington e If extradited to Washington, they would've faced capital punishment The issue was: should Canada extradite individuals . to face capital punishment in other countries given that we have abolished that practice? Capital Punishment and Fundamental Justice Obviously, capital punishment deprives an individual of the right to life But is this deprivation consistent with \"fundamental justice? The SCC's answer: NO The justices noted: The international trend against capital punishment Rising concern about \"wrongful conviction\" Notice how a substantive standard of justice was applied here, rather than a procedural standard SCC''s decision strongly suggests that the government would not be able to reinstitute capital punishment Charter Challenge to Canada's Health Care System = A Section 7 case with significant political repercussions is Chaoulli v. Quebec (2005) > Under Canada's health care system, individuals are effectively barred from paying for medical services already covered by provincial government health plans \\ > This is designed to prevent the emergence of a two-tier regime where the rich can buy the best health care, and every one else is forced to rely on the public system > The Big Decision Dr. Chaoulli complained that his not being able to pay meant that he had to wait in long line-ups for medical care he alleged that this violated his right to security of the person SCC sided with him but on the basis of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms Still not clear whether ban on paying for medical care violates the Canadian Charter Were the SCC to agree that it does, Canada's health care system would have to be overhauled