Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Physician-assisted dying (2)
- Supreme Court of Canada (2)
- Assisted Dying (1)
- Assisted Suicide (1)
- Assisted suicide (1)
-
- Canada (1)
- Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act (1)
- Carter v Canada (1)
- Carter v. Canada (1)
- Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1)
- Draft Legislation (1)
- Drafting Regulations (1)
- Drug Regulation (1)
- End of life (1)
- Euthanasia (1)
- Gamete Donors (1)
- MAID (1)
- Pharmaceutical Policy (1)
- Prohibition on Payment (1)
- Regulated assisted-dying (1)
- Surrogate Mothers (1)
- Third Party Egg Production (1)
- Transparency (1)
- Voluntary euthanasia (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Carter V. Canada: What’S Next For Physicians?, Jocelyn Downie
Carter V. Canada: What’S Next For Physicians?, Jocelyn Downie
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
On Feb. 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously declared that the Criminal Code prohibitions on physician-assisted dying (both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia) violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.1 The Court immediately suspended the declaration, which means that its decision does not come into effect for 12 months. Canadians therefore have a year to prepare for the reality of legal physician-assisted dying, assuming that the federal government does not invoke the notwithstanding clause. In the immediate aftermath of this decision, a key question for physicians is “what can and should physicians do over the coming months …
After Carter V. Canada, Jocelyn Downie
After Carter V. Canada, Jocelyn Downie
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
When it recently struck down the Criminal Code prohibitions on physician-assisted dying, the Supreme Court of Canada gave federal and provincial legislatures 12 months to craft new legislation to meet the conditions set out in its landmark ruling.
Draft Provincial/Territorial Legislation To Implement A Regulatory Framework For Medically-Assisted Dying Consistent With Carter V. Canada (Attorney General) 2015 Scc 5 And The Final Report Of The Provincial-Territorial Expert Advisory Group On Physician-Assisted Dying, Jocelyn Downie
Reports & Public Policy Documents
On February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously declared that the Criminal Code prohibitions on physician-assisted dying (both assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia) violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They immediately suspended the declaration for 12 months thus allowing the government time to craft new legislation. This paper is a contribution to the project of meeting that deadline -- it presents draft provincial/territorial legislation. This draft legislation is based on: 1) a thorough review of existing legislation in all permissive regimes throughout the world (reviewed through a "lessons learned" lens); 2) the requirements for constitutional validity …
Why The Government Of Canada Won't Regulate Assisted Human Reproduction: A Modern Mystery, Jocelyn Downie, Dave Snow, Francoise Baylis
Why The Government Of Canada Won't Regulate Assisted Human Reproduction: A Modern Mystery, Jocelyn Downie, Dave Snow, Francoise Baylis
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
The Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHR Act), passed in 2004, prohibits both paying consideration to a surrogate mother and purchasing sperm and ova from a donor (sections 6-7). Both prohibitions are subject to section 12, which was intended to permit reimbursement of expenditures incurred by surrogate mothers and gamete donors and reimbursement for loss of work-related income for surrogate mothers. Remarkably, more than ten years after the AHR Act received Royal Assent, and in spite of repeated calls for greater legal clarity, Health Canada has not drafted regulations pursuant to section 12 of the AHR Act, which is not …
Denaturalizing Transparency In Drug Regulation, Matthew Herder
Denaturalizing Transparency In Drug Regulation, Matthew Herder
Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
In the arena of pharmaceutical drug regulation, transparency is the favoured focus of many current policy initiatives. Transparency is predominantly understood in terms of information disclosure. Requirements to register clinical trials, publish summary results, share clinical trial data, and disclose physician-industry relationships as well as rationales behind regulatory decision making are each predicated upon this idea that imparting information will both inform and deter unwanted behaviours. In this paper, I argue that understanding transparency qua disclosure has clear limitations and suggest transparency can and should serve an additional function - namely, of enabling standard setting through a more participatory, public …