Rodgriguez Vs British Columbia

November 4, 2006

Hon. Justice John Sopinka

Supreme Court of Canada

301 Wellington St.

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A OJ1

Re: Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

As the majority writer in the case of Rodriguez v. British Columbia, you are well aware that this case has and will become a case that will be infamous with ethics vs. the law. You are well aware of the facts and I need not to reiterate them to you. I write to you in response to the courts final decision that was rendered on September 30, 1993. Sue Rodriguez was denied her appeal that section 241(b) of the criminal code violated sections 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Rodriguez, 1). It is undoubtedly a verdict that used basic ethical decision making principles and theory to deny Sue Rodriguez her rights.

It is obvious why this case and especially its verdict has caused such an uproar with ethicists and society. The ethical dilemma presented in this case is whether Canadian law has the authority to prohibit Sue Rodriguez the right to pursue physician assisted suicide as a way to end her life.

The most prominent ethical principle that was used against Sue Rodriguez was Respect for Persons. This ethical principal states “individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection” (Levine, XXII). Sue Rodriguez in this case was simply exercising her right to autonomy. When diagnosed and given her grim prognosis she was informed of her range of options and the devastating painful outcome of death, which is one the key factors of this ethical principle. The person must be given all the necessary information in order for them to be able to make an ethical decision. Sue Rodriguez was simply trying to control the manner in which she died. The court room argued she was of diminished autonomy and that another party must look out for her best interests. Sue Rodriguez was in control of her mind and actions, the only thing she could not control was how quickly her illness was killing her and the ability to kill herself without the aid of another person. The court’s decision that “it is society’s obligation to preserve life and protect the vulnerable outweighed her rights” (CBC), is the prime example of the misuse of Respect for Persons.

The second ethical principal that was misused in this case was justice. The basis of Sue Rodriguez’s case was to receive the “right” to “what she deserves” (Levine, xxii). The principal of justice is also based on “those equal should be treated equally” (Levine, xxiv). I think a large part of the reason why justice was used incorrectly in your decision is because you failed to give Sue her equality. Although her health was ailing, her mind and her spirit were that of any other person in society. I believe that your justice gave her a status of an unequal due to her condition. If in the eye of justice we can’t all receive the same treatment and be classified equals, what is the point of a law governing body? The court of law must be delivered equality to its entire governing citizens. No one person should be treated better or worse than another.

If the teleological theory had been applied correctly to this case the outcome would have been different. The teleological theory is “is a theory of moral obligation-that looks at what produces the most good and the least harm for all concerned” (Levine XIX). What would have produced the most good in this case would have been to grant Sue Rodriguez the ability to commit physician assisted suicide. It would have relieved the suffering of her family, physicians and caregiver’s medical obligation’s, and most importantly give Sue Rodriguez a dignified death. The outcome that the court chose deterred all those who had found a “dignified manner of dying” (CBC) in physician assisted suicide.

The theory of natural law when applied to this case can be said to have been used correctly but ultimately against Sue Rodriguez. According to this theory “actions are morally right if they accord with our nature as human beings”