Mark Penninga writes about the ongoing legalization of assisted suicide debate in the National Post.
One need not be healthy or strong to be protected equally under the law. As long as you have human DNA, you qualify for protection. Euthanasia and assisted suicide violates this principle of no intentional killing. I was shocked by how little the lawyers and judges in the Supreme Court hearing discussed this. The inviolability of life, which is a foundation for all law, was brushed aside as if it was a pesky house fly that distracted the lawyers and judges for a brief moment.
If we cross the line where the right to life moves from objective to subjective, we undermine the entire foundation of human rights.
In my mind, anyway, we already crossed that line round about the time we legalized abortion. So nowadays, (for many other reasons as well) life is not objective. It is not an objective good to defend, encourage and support. It is purely subjective–because individual people, particularly suffering people, have good reasons very often, to end their own lives. We used to stand up consistently against that, but today we don’t anymore. Could it be that abortion normalized the idea of killing others–precisely because it has been so routinely framed as difficult, but necessary and even compassionate, alongside being paid for by the government?
by 
Thanks for engaging with this piece Andrea. I would agree that the “right to life” shifted when abortion was legalized. If you look at the Rodriguez decision (1993) and this Carter case you will find quite a few references to the Morgentaler decision, especially in regards to autonomy.
But there is an important distinction. The courts have skirted around the place of the preborn under Canadian law because Parliament has not come up with legislation protecting the preborn. When Parliament does, the courts will have to work with this new paradigm. In fact, the Supreme Court made it pretty clear that the preborn should be protected – they just are leaving that to Parliament.
As it stands today, all born humans are protected equally under the law. There is still a recognition of universal human rights – based solely on our being human. State-endorsed-suicide/euthanasia would change that. We would be crossing a line that we have not crossed for hundreds or even thousands of years in western society. As ARPA explained in our factum in this Carter case, the consequences will go beyond the right to life. When this becomes subjective, the foundation for human rights is also subjective.
All that to say, if the Court upholds the “sanctity of life” principle like they did in Rodriguez, there is hope for upholding the right to life of the preborn, as well human rights in general.