This week’s Supreme Court hearing on euthanasia was about life and death, of course, but it is equally about a powerful clash of institutions.

By Peter Stockland October 16, 2014

1 minute read

This week’s Supreme Court hearing on euthanasia was about life and death, of course, but it is equally about a powerful clash of institutions.

While the so-called Carter case was argued on the merits of discovering in the Canadian constitution a right to what might be called concierge service suicide, the heart of the discussion was really the balance of power between the courts and Canada’s Parliament.

All constitutional cases, by their nature, engage that balance in differing ways, particularly when they involve the sections of the Charter of Rights dealing with security of the person and equality rights. Yet Wednesday’s forensic test match on euthanasia touched a tipping point that may have been brushed against only 26 years ago in the Morgentaler case on abortion; perhaps not even then.

At least two elements make the Carter case so noteworthy in that regard.

You'll also enjoy...

Simply About Freedom

In the past two weeks, Ottawa lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos has argued the case for conscience rights of doctors, and won a major freedom of information legal battle over publicizing statistics about abortion. Convivium Publisher Peter Stockland sat down with him to discuss the cases.

Under Siege Is Essential Reading

Publisher Peter Stockland reports from the launch of Don Hutchinson's Under Siege, an examination of the evolution of religious freedom in Canada from 1867 up to our 150th birthday this year.

Carter, Charter, and Magna Carta

In striking down laws against physician-assisted suicide, the Supreme Court of Canada used the Charter of Rights to eviscerate 800 years of legal wisdom first captured in the Great Charter—or Magna Carta—and based on the immutable link between God and the rule of law.