Article content continued

“Parliament’s power to legislate in this area is not unrestricted,” Pastine said. “The court did not propose, did not mandate the creation of a complex federal regulatory scheme to regulate physician-assisted dying. Such a law could be subject to constitutional challenge on the grounds that Parliament has exceeded its jurisdiction.

“More importantly, as a matter of principle, we think it is profoundly problematic to regulate the delivery of a medical treatment through the prohibitions and penal sanctions of the Criminal Code.”

Any further rules should be left to the provinces and medical colleges and must not restrict or deny seriously ill and suffering Canadians their constitutional right to end their lives, she said.

But Cameron, whose conservative-leaning organization also fights to protect individuals’ constitutional freedoms, argued that Superior Court judges should be empowered decide whether to grant death requests.

“When you aren’t able to get medication from one doctor, you find it from another doctor, and that’s why you ‘doctor shop’,” he said. “The protection of having a Superior Court justice is that you have somebody who is removed from the situation. As far as ethical considerations go, it is far better to have the issue in the hands of a judge than on the hands of physician.”

The BCCLA believes eligible patients should be able to give advance consent in the event they later become mentally incompetent.