In 1989, Nancy B. was admitted to a Quebec hospital because of paralysis and complete respiratory failure. The paralysis was the result of Guillain-Bar syndrome, a rare neurological disease. Doctors told her that she would be paralyzed and on a respirator for the rest of her life. For the next 2 and one half years she lay in the hospital, unable to do anything but watch television and think. In November, 1991, she asked her doctor to turn off the respirator and let her die. she was 24 years old. Her request placed the doctor in a difficult situation. The Quebec Civil code gives patients the right to refuse medical treatment. However, the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits euthanasia, aiding suicide and harming a person by stopping a course of action. If Nancy E consented to the respirators' being disconnected, would her doctor be charged with a crime? In Canada, a physician will not be criminally charged if he or she acts in accordance with accepted ethical medical standards. It is ethical for a physician to allow death to occur with dignity and comfort when death of the body appears to be inevitable. If clinical death of the brain has occurred, the physician need not prolong life by unusual or heroic means. If a patient is terminally ill and death is imminent, a physician can stop medical treatment that Is futile or unwanted, even if It shortens life. Nancy 3 did not fit into any of these categories. Although there was not hope of recovery, she could have lived for decades on the respirator. Nancy 8 wanted to stop a medical treatment (the respirator), and because she was paralyzed she needed another person to help her. Canada does not have a law against committing suicide, but it does haver a law against helping another person commit Suicide (C.C.C.s.241). The purpose of 5.241 is to protect vulnerable people from others who may want to influence their decision to end their lives. The Nancy B case went to the Quebec Superior Court. The judge had to weigh the right of an Individual to control her life against the duty of the state to protect life. In January, 1991, Justice Jacques Dufour ruled that the doctor would not be Committing a criminal act If Nancy B requested the he turn off the life-support system and the doctor complied. The judge decided that stopping Nancy B's respirator was not the same as homicide or suicide, even though death would be inevitable. By asking the doctor to turn off the respirator, Nancy B was not asking the doctor to end her life. She was asking the doctor to stop medical treatment so that her Illness would take its natural course. Justice Dufour said that individuals have the right to autonomy and self-determination, so long as they are not acting against public policy or jeopardizing the life or health or others. He also said that the Criminal Code must be liberally interpreted to take into account humanitarian considerations and new medical technologies. On February 13, 1992, Nancy E. was given sedatives and anesthetics (to minimize pain) and the doctor turned off the respirator. She died a few minutes later.

What were the statutes that appeared to be in conflict in the case of Nancy B.? 

What was the key legal issue? 

On what grounds did the Supreme Court decide to allow Nancy B. the right to refuse treatment? 

What danger to society is the law against assisting suicide designed to prevent?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The detailed answer for the above question is provided below In the case of Nancy Bthe main statutes ... View the full answer