Live or Die
Essay title: Live or Die
Who has the right to determine whether we live or die? Is it only God who has
this ability or do we also hold our fates in our hands. Ultimately it is the law that
clenches this right tightly in its iron fist.
Two cases which employ two different outcomes towards the argument of the right to life and the choice to die are: Malette v. Shulman and Rodriquez v. British Columbia. Both of these cases focus on one common area, your right to life or death as you see fit. The outcomes in these two cases are at two separate ends of the spectrum to this question, and I will explain how these two outcomes are irreconcilable.
Both cases have different elements which bring about the dispute of a persons right to live or die. The case of Malette v. Shulman is one based on religious beliefs. Mrs. Georgette Malette, age 57, was rushed to the Kirkland and District Hospital by ambulance on June 30, 1999, after being in a car accident. Her husband, who was also in the car, was declared dead at the scene. Once at the hospital Dr. Shulman examined her and found that she had severe head and face injuries, and was bleeding profusely. Dr. Shulman reasoned that she was suffering from shock due to extreme blood loss, he ordered Ringers Lactate, a blood volume expander, put into her. At this time a card was discovered by a nurse stating that Mrs. Malette was a Jehovahs Witness and under no circumstances was to be given a blood transfusion, the card was signed by Mrs. Malette but not dated. Dr. Shulman brought her to the X-Ray room to get a complete diagnosis of her condition, but once there her blood pressure dropped considerably, and she became critically ill. In an attempt to save her life, Dr. Shulman gave Mrs. Malette a blood transfusion. She was transferred to Toronto General Hospital where she recovered well. After she had left the hospital she sued Dr. Shulman for negligence and assault and battery in regards to the blood transfusion. She won her case and was awarded $20,000 due to her religious beliefs and not consenting to the transfusion.
In Rodriguez v. British Columbia, Sue Rodriguez was a 42 year old woman suffering from Lue Gehrigs disease. She brought her case up from the British Columbia Superior court to the Supreme Court of Canada. She stated that s. 241(b) of the Criminal Code violated s. 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the charter states that everyone has the right to life liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 12 continues this theme by guaranteeing everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. While s. 15(1) states every individual is equal under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. She argued that due to her disease she is not able to commit suicide and that because of s. 241(b), which says that assisting in suicide is illegal, she is not able to ask for help. She also stated that because attempting suicide has not been illegal since 1972, that a fully functioning person is able to commit suicide without any legal repercussions. She argued that s. 241(b) of the criminal code was in violation of s. 15(1) of the charter, which says that all individuals are equal under the law regardless of physical disability, due to the fact that she could not effectively kill herself without assistance. The Supreme Justices deliberated on her case and five out of nine Justices dismissed her case on the grounds that s. 241(b) does not specifically discriminate against people with physical disabilities.
These two cases are at extreme odds to one another for when one (Rodriguez v. British Columbia) supports life; the other (Malette v. Shulman) supports death. During the case of Malette v. Shulman it was discussed that Mrs. Malette had the right to refuse life saving measures based on her religion. “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his/her own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without