Democracy in Theory and Practice

Democracy in Theory and Practice

Western countries often enjoy increased liberties as they are categorized as democratic. However, some of these liberties often raise concerns about how democracy works. One such case is the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that declared the prohibition of physician-assisted death as unconstitutional or illegal. The following paper aims at analyzing the main arguments made by the Supreme Court in terms of how the law infringed on individual rights. Moreover, it will also discuss how Joseph Stuart Mill’s argument on liberty can be used to respond to the ruling.

The 2015 Supreme Court of Canada ruling declared the ban on physician-assisted death as illegal or unconstitutional. According to Pothier (2015), the trial judge deciding the case argued that the ban violated the rights of capable adults who suffer unbearably because of permanent and grievous medical disorders. It was noted that the ban deprived individuals seeking such services the right to life, security, and liberty. Individuals are deprived of the right to life when any government or legislation forces death or an elevated risk of death on an individual either straight or incidentally. The court argued that competent patients who were suffering but denied the ability to end their lives were at higher risk of committing suicide (Pothier, 2015). Such individuals fear that they may not be able to end their life prematurely once they reach a point where the suffering is excruciating. Most permanent and irreversible medical conditions involve gradual deterioration in a patient’s ability to function normally such as loss of speech, paralysis, and lack of memory (Pothier, 2015). Therefore, the court argued that the ban might drive individuals to take their lives prematurely to avoid such instances. Moreover, the Supreme Court also argued that the prohibition violated the right to liberty and security, which involves freedom and quality of life. The decision to end their life is subject to his/her dignity and freedom (Pothier, 2015). The prohibition denies such individuals to make sound decisions about their medical care and bodily integrity, thus violating their liberty. Moreover, leaving them to suffer unbearably takes away their security.

Furthermore, the court also argued that the prohibition is not a means of preserving life since it only seeks to protect vulnerable individuals from being persuaded to end their life prematurely at a time of weakness (Pothier, 2015). However, focusing on the vulnerable does not entirely meet the government’s objective of protecting the vulnerable. Therefore, the infringement was justified under the Charter of Right’s general limitation clause. This is because the government’s objective was not always achieved through the blanket exclusion of physician-assisted dying (Pothier, 2015). The judge found sufficient evidence that physician-assisted death could be developed and implemented in a manner that protects the vulnerable from being persuaded to commit suicide.

The Supreme Court ruling is related to Mill’s view on the suitable relationship between society and the individual in terms of liberty. His theory explores the aspect and restrictions of the power that can be implemented by society over an individual. According to Mill (1966), power can only be justly be used over any individual of a civilized society, against his determination, to avoid harm to others. The meaning of his argument can be understood from the idea that society should not allow anyone to voluntarily accept to become a slave (Mill, 1966). Mill supports the idea of a better society when individuals are free or have liberty. The only limitation is that their freedom does not bring harm to others. Nevertheless, the idea of harms is contradicting since some harm such as not paying taxes is complex.

In this case, Mill would have supported the Supreme Court ruling since the state is not justified to implement control or restriction over any member of society if they are not preventing harm towards others. The ban on physician-assisted death was imposed on all individuals as a means of protecting the vulnerable from being influenced to commit suicide. However, the ban does not prevent any harm to others since assisted death is the personal decision or a component adult who is suffering intolerably. Mill would also support the ruling since it violates the sovereignty of the individual in terms of his own body and mind (Mill, 1966). Mill believed that the individual has an absolute right over his body and mind. The ban does not seek to help an individual with permanent and grievous medical conditions make a choice or decision about their body. It strategically deprives them of the right to decide their dignity and medical care. Assisted physician death is a controlled program where a patient of sound mind can decide whether to be assisted in terminating his life instead of suffering extremely until his natural death.

Moreover, Mill also believed that liberty was good for society since in a free society individuals can make out what is wrong and right or what is harmful (Mill, 1966). In this case, allowing physician-assisted suicide allows the government to focus on the objective of protecting the vulnerable individual from taking their life prematurely. Rather than banning physician-assisted death, the government can develop measures that seek to protect the vulnerable such as suicide hotlines or better mental health services. Therefore, this enables the government to effectively protect the vulnerable while allowing an individual with critical and permanent conditions to enjoy their right to life, liberty, and security before they reach a point of being incapable.

In conclusion, based on Mill’s position on the relationship between society and the individual, Mill might have considered better and earlier ways to consider physician-assisted suicide. Based on Mill’s position on individuality, an individual’s choices and decisions are the best for their self-development. Individual live to the fullest of their abilities, but when faced with serious medical conditions that can limit their capacities and talents, they should be allowed to decide the timing and means of his/her death. In this way, the individual is not limited in making their judgment as to what best suits their personal development. The court ruling introduced numerous considerations such as the lack of preventing harm to others in terms of protecting the vulnerable. However, Mill’s position illustrates that individual choices and judgments are the best for determining self-development as well as capabilities. Patients with critical medical conditions may live a diminished life without the ability to decide when and how to die. Most medical conditions cause intolerable physical, psychological, and financial suffering. Of promoting individuality, that Mill’s position supports the Supreme Court’s ruling