Posted on 08/19/2011 1:07:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
VANCOUVER, August 18, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A lawsuit filed in British Columbia by the Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die challenging Canadian laws against assisted suicide was rejected by Supreme Court Judge Lynn Smith on August 17.
The case was one of two being heard in B.C. Supreme Court.
Farewell Foundation’s suit was based on a refusal by the British Columbia Registrar of Companies to register the group because the aims of the organization - to establish a non-profit corporation, along the lines of Swiss-based assisted suicide groups, for the purpose of assisting the suicides of its members - contravene the criminal code.
Judge Smith ruled the Farewell Foundation’s case did not have standing because the suit was filed on behalf of anonymous members.
“Justice Smith found that if the Farewell Foundation wished to bring a constitutional challenge, the members whose health is deteriorating must identify themselves,” the group’s lawyer Jason Gratl said in a statement.
Donnaree Nygard, lawyer for the federal attorney general, argued the case was “hypothetical” because the plaintiffs were not facing criminal charges for assisted suicide, according to the Vancouver Sun.
However, Judge Smith informed the suicide group that they were welcome to apply for intervener status in another right-to-die case filed by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) on behalf of the family of Kay Carter, who died by assisted suicide at the Swiss Dignitas suicide center in January 2010, and Gloria Taylor, who lives with ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease.
Alex Schadenberg, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), says his organization is prepared to intervene in the BCCLA lawsuit as well.
“The Farewell Foundation case attempted to legalize ‘Swiss style’ assisted suicide, while the BCCLA (Carter/Taylor) case is attempting to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide via the court,” Schadenberg said.
“The EPC is particularly concerned with the language of the BCCLA Notice of Application,” Schadenberg warned, “which indicates a particularly negative attitude to the lives of people with disabilities. Living with a disability is not a life not worth living but rather a challenge to society to enable people with disabilities to live with equality and acceptance.”
“The EPC recognizes that the laws that prohibit euthanasia and assisted suicide are designed to protect people in the most vulnerable time of their lives, and rejects the concept that it is necessary to legalize euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in order to ensure a ‘death with dignity’.”
Schadenberg pointed out that in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, the suicide rate has steadily climbed since 2000 with Oregon’s suicide rate now being 35% higher than the national average. This corresponds with other trends that suggest that the social acceptance of assisted suicide creates a suicide contagion effect.
“The EPC considers the BCCLA case to be dangerous to public safety and a recipe for elder abuse,” Schadenberg added.
“The EPC considers the BCCLA case to be dangerous to public safety and a recipe for elder abuse,” Schadenberg added.
The culture of death is all to eager to push the "useless eaters" into the grave.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
You've got that right, wagglebee! Hillarycare/Obamacare/Totalitariancare = compassionate extermination (for a while).
Suicide cultists need to be killed.
Canada ping.
How long will it take for “Right to Die” to morph into “Duty to Die”?
Look at seat belt laws for that answer. We were told that seatbelts would NEVER be a primary cause for a traffic stop. That lasted less than 5 years.
Hi Don.
Clive has the Canada ping list now.
Thanks for the ping, Don W
The Farewell Foundation tried to register itself on the Companies register and its application was rejected because the Registrar found that their objectives were contrary to law, specifically contrary to the Criminal Code.
The registrar is not a court of inherent jurisdiction and therefor had no capacity to pass on the constitutionality of the Criminal Code, He must take the state of the law as written.
I am not clear from reading the article, but it appears that the Foundation did not appeal or bring an application for Judicial Review (for example in the nature of mandamus) but rather attempted a suit at first instance claiming a right on behalf of anonymous persons.
The court reused to pass upon purported claims by persons who are not named and not parties to the action.
So far it is a loss for those advocating assisted suicide.
Madam justice did invite the Foundation to apply for intervenor status in another action having similar subject matter. That invitation appears to me to be obiter dictum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.