VANCOUVER—When B.C. Civil Liberties Association lawyer Jay Aubrey called to speak with a woman waiting to know when she would be allowed to legally end her life peacefully with a doctor’s help — she endured “intolerable suffering” because of an illness — Aubrey was surprised when the woman’s daughter answered the phone.

“She says, ‘My mom couldn’t wait, she took her life by violent means,’” Aubrey said. For someone who had wanted to die on her own terms, this outcome was “incredibly traumatic.”

“People are taking their lives prematurely,” Aubrey said, “because they couldn’t relieve their suffering.”

On Tuesday, the BCCLA is headed back to court, hoping to convince a B.C. Court of Appeal judge to speed up the civil-rights group’s fight to change Canada’s doctor-assisted dying legislation.

The BCCLA hopes the appeals court will allow the organization to challenge the government’s legislation, Bill C-14, at a trial, without rehashing what’s already been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. That includes whether assisted dying is ethical and whether Canadians are in support of it.

The federal government is defending its right-to-die legislation, which came into effect in 2016. The legislation came in response to the Carter v. Canada case, fought by BCCLA lawyers, which ruled in favour of allowing medical assistance in death.

But the BCCLA says the federal government’s right-to-die legislation doesn’t follow the ruling laid out by the courts.

Whereas the court said capable adults experiencing “intolerable suffering” due to an illness or disability should have a right to doctor assisted death, Aubrey said, the legislation only allows people who have a “reasonably foreseeable” death to access the service. This, she said, excludes the very patients who had fought for access to assisted dying in Carter v. Canada.

“Every day this law stands, and every day the Canadian government is fighting to preserve its law, is another day people suffering intolerably against their wishes,” Aubrey said.

“They’re waiting for resolution to this trial. For many of those people, every day feels like an eternity. We’re not saying new evidence shouldn’t go before the court. If there’s new evidence of course it should. But it just shouldn’t be the same evidence,” she said.

In response to the BCCLA challenging the legislation, Aubrey said the government is arguing that the courts should start from square one and hear all the evidence and arguments against assisted dying, including those heard in the Carter v. Canada case.

The government has argued its legislation came after careful consultation with Canadians, and specifically addressed deep concerns by some disability advocates that the law could be used to coerce “vulnerable” people into euthanasia.

James Hicks, national co-ordinator for the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), said he wants to see all arguments, for and against, presented in court again.

“I think there needs to be proper representation from both sides and arguments from both sides, so that when they’re actually looking at it ... they have a rounded vision of what all of this is about,” he said.

The CCD was an intervener in the Carter v. Canada case.

Hicks said he supports a person’s right to choose a doctor-assisted death, but has some concerns about the legislation being broadened to include people with disabilities, especially those with mental illness.

People with disabilities often don’t have enough social or familial support, he said, which can make life very difficult. So if they get the option to choose doctor-assisted dying, they should also have the option to access services to support them in life, he said.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

However, Aubrey said the issue as to whether all arguments are presented in court during this new challenge is about more than the rights of suffering patients or people with disabilities. It’s about democracy, she said, explaining that the time and cost of having to go over all the arguments again could strike a blow to the ability of rights groups to fight what they see as unconstitutional laws.

Challenging the government’s laws is a costly process, and Canadians rely on public-interest lawyers, such as those at the BCCLA and other non-profits, she said. She added the courts shouldn’t require the BCCLA to take the time and money to fight for the right to medically assisted death all over again.

“This really is about the viability of public-interest litigation, the purpose of which is to uphold the rights, freedoms and civil liberties of society,” she said.

Read more about: