In other words, adopt no new law on it and let patients and medical professionals figure it out.
In both Carter and Morgentaler, the Supreme Court called on Parliament to craft new laws.
In declining to create a Charter exemption, SCC said in the "remedy" section of Carter:
Complex regulatory regimes are better created by Parliament than by the courts.
And that is exactly where we disagree.
Parliament is NOT the place to create complex regulatory regimes. Parliament is a contentious, partisan arena, subject to lobbying by all the usual suspects, with all the usual agendas.
Look at its track record on abortion.
The government tried twice.
The Progressive Conservative government of Prime Minister Mulroney made two attempts to pass a new abortion law. The first proposal, in the spring of 1988, did not pass the House of Commons. The second attempt, introduced by the Minister of Justice as Bill C-43 in late 1989, would be defeated on a tie vote by the time it came to third reading in Senate on January 31, 1991, leaving Canada without criminal legislation governing abortion.And then there were the private member's bills. Plus the current one, C225, Exploiting Grief to Attack Abortion Rights.
Good scientific information and research along with conscientious practice have been emphatically demonstrated by Canada's post-Morgentaler abortion experience to be the avenue towards compassionate, reasonable, and respectful medical care.
Nobody is happy with C14 as presently proposed.
Not the doctors.
Not the gawd-botherers.
And not Canada's number uno medical writer, André Picard, who captures the essence of C14 perfectly.
The draft law is not respectful of the wishes of the majority of Canadians, nor is it patient-friendly; it’s patronizing and risk-averse. In trying to offend no one, the Liberal government has failed everyone.And unlike in 1988 when there wasn't a clear consensus on what Canadians wanted to do about abortion, now there definitely is consensus. Eight out of ten of us want assistance in dying when we bloody well decide to go.
What we have here is not a right to die, but a guarantee that too many Canadians will continue to suffer unnecessarily at the end of their lives.
Canadians learned with abortion. We know how to do this. Trust doctors and patients to work out how to go about the details of this non-issue.
We want to be able to die on our own terms. Let us work out those terms with our own doctors.
5 comments:
Brava Fern . . . Brevity is a virtue . . . and particularly when the right course is so simple. It's almost as if you're not being paid-by-the-word.
"Paid?" What means this word "paid?"
Paid, as with many words describing money, is in the past imperfect . . . and is generally in the Bad Mood. It signifies one of the many entanglements/manifestations of the root of all evil.
I recall when the Alberta government tried to 'regulate' abortions. The AMA put them on notice for interfering with patient/doctor relationship. The law is a blunt instrument - and medical professionals know very well suits are enough of a problem without the state deciding to review that which it has no expertise participating in. They have no skin in the game but would end up taking it over and making medicine an unworkable kludge. It is not a simple matter of dealing with facts ; those are often not known.
Perversity is another root of evil.Surely there must be concern about reining in the occasional mad individual who abuses an immunity to commit what amounts to serial murder. This must be balanced against misguided authorities who try to prosecute without discretion. Such acts of rash action must complicate any attempt to administer policy directed at intruding itself on the privacy of action afforded by privileged communication...by taking away the privilege.
Post a Comment