Transcendence/religion to immanence/nonreligion in assisted dying

• Date: 14 May 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHRH-09-2017-0051
• Published date: 14 May 2018
• Pages: 129-143
• Author: Lori G. Beaman,Cory Steele
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Inequalities & diverse/minority groups,Sociology,Race & ethnic studies,Minorities,Multiculturalism,Racial identity,Work, economy & organizations

Transcendence/religion to immanence/

nonreligion in assisted dying

Lori G. Beaman and Cory Steele

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the ways in which the Supreme Court of Canada

has shifted away from transcendent/religious to nonreligious conceptualizations of assisted dying.

Design/methodology/approach –A discourse analysis of a Supreme Court of Canada case on assisted

dying and the facta of the 26 associated interveners.

Findings –The research points to a shift away from religious to nonreligious understandings in the way the

Court conceptualizes suffering, pain, illness and assisted dying.

Originality/value –This paper contributes to the understanding of nonreligion as a social phenomenon.

Keywords Canada, Religion, Law, Assisted dying, Euthanasia, Nonreligion

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

What I fear is a death that negates, as opposed to concludes, my life. I do not want to die slowly, piece

by piece. I do not want to waste away unconscious in a hospital bed. I do not want to die wracked with

pain. (Gloria Taylor, as cited in Carter, at para. 12)

Through her death[1], Gloria Taylor left what promises to be a lasting legacy to the Canadian

conceptualization of death and dying. On February 6, 2015, by which time Gloria Taylor

was dead, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) (hereinafter

Carter) that:

[…] the prohibition on physician-assisted dying is void insofar as it deprives a competent adult of such

assistance where (1) the person affected clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) the person

has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that

causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her

condition. (Carter, at para. 4)

The Court further stated:

[…] the prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of Ms.

Taylor and of persons in her position, and that it does so in a manner that is overbroad and thus is not

in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. (Carter, at para. 56)

In 2009, Gloria Taylor was diagnosed with a fatal neurodegenerative disease known as

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig’s disease. By 2010, Taylor required a

wheelchair and suffered from intense pain as a result of severe muscle deterioration. Taylor

stated her desire to end her life by means of physician-assisted dying (Carter, at para. 11-12),

which was, at the time prohibited by s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Taylor, along with

other advocates of physician-assisted dying challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal

Code, arguing that it violated s. 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person) and s.

15 (equality rights under the law) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Their argument was successful at trial, overturned on appeal, and successful at the Supreme

Court of Canada. The Court gave the Canadian Federal Government a year to change the law

(which it did after a four-month extension of the original deadline).

Received 27 September 2017

Revised 7 November 2017

Accepted 4 December 2017

Lori G. Beaman would like to

acknowledge financial support for

research through her SSHRC

funded Canada Research Chair

in Religious Diversity and

Social Change.

Lori G. Beaman is a Full

Professor at the Department of

Classics and Religious Studies,

University of Ottawa,

Ottawa, Canada.

Cory Steele is based at the

Department of Classics and

Religious Studies, University of

Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

DOI 10.1108/IJHRH-09-2017-0051 VOL. 11 NO. 2 2018, pp.129-143, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-4902

j

INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HEALTHCARE

j

PAGE129