TORONTO, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Disability rights groups have challenged the constitutionality of Canada's framework for medically assisted death, arguing that providing assisted death violates people's rights if their death is not "reasonably foreseeable."
The court challenge, filed on Wednesday, asserts that making assisted death available to individuals whose death is not imminent infringes upon their rights to equality, life, liberty, and security, even if they suffer from grievous and irremediable medical conditions.
Medically assisted death is legal in Canada under specific circumstances, divided into two tracks: one for individuals whose death is "reasonably foreseeable" and another for those whose death, according to doctors, is not. The more common first track contrasts with the newer second track, which has seen increasing use.
The application states, "Track 2 increases the risk that persons with a disability will be induced to end their lives as a response to suffering," emphasizing that "death should not be a solution for disabled people who experience intolerable suffering but are otherwise not at the end of their lives."
The challenge is supported by two individuals, one of whom claims she was informed about assisted death options while seeking care in a hospital, despite her intention to receive help to live. The application notes that this availability has caused her significant harm.
Proponents of assisted death argue that the right to choose death is fundamental for those in suffering. However, some disability advocates contend that it is easier to access a dignified death than to obtain resources or interventions that would improve quality of life.
This legal challenge follows another filed a month ago, which questioned the exclusion of individuals whose only underlying condition is mental illness from the assisted death framework.
A spokesperson from the justice department stated that the government is committed to ensuring that laws reflect Canadians' needs, protect vulnerable populations, and support autonomy and freedom of choice, with further submissions to the Court forthcoming.