We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In 1993, Sue Rodriguez was unsuccessful in her efforts to persuade the Supreme Court of Canada that the Canadian Criminal Code prohibitions on voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide violated her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some twenty years later, in February 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down the very same prohibitions in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General). The next year, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-14 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying). Medical assistance in dying is now legal in Canada and it has become an illuminating case study for other jurisdictions contemplating assisted dying. This chapter describes the journey from Rodriguez to Carter to Bill C-14 and reflects on the lessons to be learned from the two interconnected yet distinct pathways to law reform taken in Canada (a court challenge and federal legislation). While there are obviously critical differences between jurisdictions such that the Canadian path cannot simply be replicated, this chapter draws out transferable lessons about law reform in this area.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.