First ever jury trial for "assisted suicide" ends in acquittal
Wonderful news - history is made - and Canada moves a step closer to a compassionate society:
A Quebec man charged with helping his ailing uncle hang himself two years ago has been found not guilty of assisted suicide.A jury acquitted Stéphan Dufour, 30, on a single charge of assisted suicide Friday morning, after three days of deliberation in the landmark case.
Dufour is the first Canadian to ever stand trial by jury for assisted suicide.
He was accused of assisting his uncle, Chantal Maltais, kill himself in his Alma home in September 2006.
Dufour admitted to installing rope, chain and a dog collar in a closet, which Maltais later used to kill himself. ...
Dufour was tearful while recalling while on stand how his uncle often begged him to help him die.
"He asked me every day to help him commit suicide," Dufour told the court.
"I didn't want to do it, but I wasn't able to take it anymore. I felt like I was in prison."
Dufour's mother, aunts and cousins broke into tears and shouted out as the jury read out its verdict in Alma's courthouse Friday morning.
Stéphan Dufour's cousin, Yannick Dufour, said he was relieved, but called on the government to review assisted suicide.
"The government needs to get its act together," he said in French. "Life doesn't belong to anyone but ourselves."
"We don't let animals suffer," Nicole Maltais added. "Why do we let people suffer?"
I don't think juries give reasons. I'm not sure what the defence was - that might give a clue.
It's unfortunate that all the old babble threads appear to have been discarded, but this one survives somewhat in Google's cache.
And in that thread, I referred to BQ MP Francine Lalonde's attempt to pilot a private member's bill on assisted suicide in 2005 - as well as the 14 years that have passed since the Sue Rodriguez story and the courageous role played by Svend Robinson.
Sadly, governments and Parliament have done nothing to improve the situation since then. We should be thankful to the courts - and in this case, to a jury of ordinary citizens - for starting to remedy the problem.
ETA: Here's a working link to the above-referenced babble thread.
Stephan Dufour's defense was "mental incapacity". The defense painted the slightly incapacitated youth as browbeaten by his uncle into strangling him. I can understand assisted suicide advocates trying to spin this unprecedented decision their way, but anyone eager to jump on that bandwagon should take a look at recent cases* of women's murders at the hands of their spouse, that were presented by the media - taking their cue from the murderers - as "compassionate killings". The distinction between both situations becomes rather hard to maintain when the killer is the main witness and describes his act as something he felt compelled to do, either because a) his victim "no longer had sufficient quality of life"; or b) had begged him to do it; or c) he could no longer bear the weight of caring for her; or d) he was being tyrannized by the victim. Stephan Dufour's lawyer pressed levers a) and d) in his defense. In a society that would rather gush about a "right to die" than support the right to be decently cared for, I find that juncture problematic. _______________________________
* From my database of spousal murders in Quebec:
Rollande Liboiron, 50, was killed in the Montreal suburb of Repentigny on October 20, 2008 by her husband Yvan Samson, 53. Samson had instructed his neighbours not to speak to his wife, claiming she suffered from Alzheimer's disease. He described himself as his "natural caregiver".
Anita Roy, 72, killed at her Tring-Junction home with hatchet blows to the head on November 21, 2007, by her husband, Jean-Guy Bosa, 71. As the victim had received a cancer victim a few months earlier, and the killer committed suicide after the murder (as did Samson), the media immediately described the murder as a "suicide pact". We are witnessing a growing number of such "double suicides" of elderly people in Quebec, with little indication that wives will them..
And I am disturbed by the construction "Decent care is important, but...", confirming that both these rights are presently being played one against the other, indeed with the right to die being given more vibrant attention than the more costly and embarrassing right to decent living. I appreciate your concern about your end of life. Yet, a friend commented that he expected such highly mediatized stories and discourse to translate into additional pressure to "bow out" on people perceived/described as having expended their "quality lifetime".
To the shock of the family and many others, the Crown has announced that it will appeal the not-guilty verdict. They are apparently focusing on the judge's instructions, saying (for instance) that the judge should not have reminded the jury about the evidence that Dufour had diminished mental capacity.
I guess the powers that be couldn't afford to leave this unprecedented verdict sitting out there unchallenged.
Which society is that?
Looking around at the need for more and newer Long Term Care facilities after two decades of Conservative appeals for "lower taxes" (and Liberal acquiesence)...I guess this society. It does not cost as much.
Your comment is based on what evidence?
Assisted suicide is still a criminal offence, and there has been no significant push from any party to change that in the slightest, despite the many years that have passed since the high-profile Sue Rodriguez case. Even the Bloc's bill seems to be gone. Name one politician calling for decriminalization, please.
Unless you think Svend Robinson's motive was cost-cutting and killing off old and sick people?
That is good new, Unionist. But, unfortunately, it may simply be a case of jury nullification (which is great for the individual defendant but does little systemically to address the issue).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
What's actually needed is more of this: Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Terminally ill Québec man seeks right to assisted suicide
Of course, it's a Criminal Code issue, so he's asking the provincial minister to put pressure on Ottawa.
That poor man in Quebec will probably not get any relief. But, hopefully, his story, and others like his, will cause people to rethink assisted suicide.
There is a likelihood that any one of us is going to end up in that same condition and, if people thought about that even briefly, I would think that most would see the wisdom in letting people die under their own terms.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
More on this story...
Unionist, are there any provinces in Canada which are like Oregon and permit doctor-assisted suicide?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Just noticed Sven's post - I think criminal law is state jurisdiction in the U.S. and federal in Canada, so it can't happen here.
Now some news:
Euthanasia doctor allowed into UK
First lawful assisted suicide in Washington state
The right to die is scary in societies that do not support a right to life. For people who have chronic illnesses and fear for what the burden will have on their families a choice to die is one with a deep and horrible conflict of interest. A society that encourages the right to die without providing the means for life for those needing support is just as inhuman as one that denies the right to die.
It is an unfair burden to place on the vulnerable that they can now be faced with a so-called choice to relieve the burden of suffering placed on their families by "choosing" to die. This can be as much of a burden as living in pain or incapacitated etc.
It is essential that full support be given to those individuals and their families who choose to live in diminished health and this must be a part of any extension of a right to die otherwise the right to die is just as cruel as the witholding of that right.
I never thought of that. Good point, Sean.
We have had other ironies before that I find have a similar theme. When I was in high-school we debated a woman's right to choose. I was very political even as a youngster and even then I could see the irony. The NDP championed the right to choice. But by this I mean real choice. The NDP also advocated support for children, healthcare, daycare, social assitance and jobs. The conservatives opposed public support for all of these and opposed abortion. At that young age I understood that the Conservatives really care about you, with all their teeny, tiny little hearts... until you are born. Then screw you. Most of my life, I have known the Conservatives as the people who care about you until you are born.
With the elderly and the ill, the choice of life or not is different of course. These are not fetuses-- potential people, they are people. These are real people forced to make the decision themselves, with or without pressure from their families, the state, creditors and realities. They make this decision with or without a real choice because of a lack of support for the vulnerable in this country.
There are other burdens of having an ill family member but if the material costs could be removed we could at least hope people would not die to bring mercy to their familes for the wrong reasons. I am sorry to say but without this I cannot support legalizing euthanasia even though I am aware of the tragedies of some wanting to die. There would be many more who don't want to die wanting it for all the wrong reasons.
This is of course seperate from the other important issue of being sure that the choice is truly coming from the person and that this person has the full capacity to make such a decision.
Not quite true...they suddenly start caring if you're a vegitable too.
Martin:
Thank you Unionist for being so open minded on this. It is a complicated issue and it will need to be decided by people like you who have an openness to compassion on both sides of an issue.
Suicide class for terminally ill cancelled by Vancouver public library
Decriminalize euthanasia, Quebec MDs urge
What a magnificent woman and a powerful story:
At 95, trailblazer Bernice Levitz Packford wants the power to end her life
Assisted suicide voted down by MPs
How shameful that doctors whose profession and conscience dictate that they relieve suffering at their patient's request, must still face criminal charges and prison. We need more courageous MPs like Francine Lalonde - and where is Svend Robinson?
The bill's authors appear to have gone out of their way to build in plenty of protections (possibly too many) ...and it still couldn't pass!
I am somewhat surprised that the bill was defeated by such a significant margin.
Still, the concept of legalizing physician-assisted suicide is relatively new. I expect that over time, as we continue (hopefully) to evolve more and more towards secularism in society, physician-assisted suicide will continue to gain traction.
Right-to-die debate takes centre stage in Québec
Assisted suicide now being discussed on The Sunday Edition, CBC Radio One, by a five-person panel. The bias of the panel is roughly 4 to 1 against - very balanced! And the professional anti-human fraudulent "ethicist" Margaret Somerville is leading the charge.