“I wish that the medical profession could mandate, through sensitive and appropriate protocols, the administration of a lethal dose of Nembutal to end the life of an elderly or terminally ill patient, in accordance with her living will.” - Gillian Bennett, August 18, 2014

There are very few rights we do not have in Canada.

Of course, most of those rights are limited. We have a right to drive, but not without going through a permitting process. We have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, subject to a few limited exceptions, such as a search warrant’s authorization. We have a right to vote. We have a right to bear children; regardless of how wrong that might be for some people (of course, custody of those children can be taken away later on).

Perhaps the only right we do not have in any form, regardless of how restricted it is, is over the timing and manner of our death. We are in control of virtually every other aspect of our lives or have some form of limited access to every other necessity or basic human right, except our swan songs.

Canadians overwhelmingly support physician-assisted death. CBC News reported that 84 percent of Canadians agreed that “a doctor should be able to help someone end their life if the person is a competent adult who is terminally ill, suffering unbearably, and repeatedly asks for assistance to die”.

Many people read the heartwarming and heart wrenching story of Gillian Bennett, who ended her life in a dignified and painless manner with her husband of 60 years beside her. In a compelling form of posthumous advocacy, she created a website to go live following her death.

More recently, we heard of Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old terminal cancer patient who moved from California to Oregon to take advantage of their physician assisted death laws there.

In 1993, Sue Rodriguez challenged Canadian laws. She lost by a 5-4 margin at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Next week, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments revisiting the case. Interestingly, the only member of the present court who was also a member in 1993 is (now) Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. She wrote a dissent in the 1993 decision (i.e. supporting physician-assisted death).

Stakes are high for all involved. This is the kind of case that evokes intense, deep emotions at both ends of the table. Perhaps its staunchest opponents are religious groups. In its factum, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada repeatedly refers to the case as involving a person’s “right to be killed” and speaks of “consensual killing”. Ostensibly, the alternative to “killing” (more commonly known as “physician-assisted death”), which is often intolerable and prolonged suffering at great expense, is a better way in which to respect the sanctity of human life.

The issue, unfortunately, has been more legalistic than it ought to be. The government has continually argued that the 1993 Rodriguez decision is binding and that both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal were bound by it. Two of three judges at the appeal level agreed, paving the way for the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, at this level, the court is not hidebound to the Rodriquez decision and the government cannot hide behind them. Opponents will need to face the mountain of evidence at trial from real suffering people who wanted to maintain control and dignity over their lives. The opposing arguments are largely based on the suggestion that doctors will run amok killing people who do not actually want to die and that the best way to promote the sanctity of human life is by sufficient anaesthesia to prevent suffering (which might be extreme sedation).

One coherent argument was made by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, citing a 2010 study from that found 32 percent of Belgian doctors who had assisted patients in their deaths had not sought patients’ consent before doing so.

Assuming that study is correct in its figures, it amounts to an argument for effective and accountable regulation, not an outright prohibition on physician-assisted death. People die in cars, but we do not have a blanket prohibition on cars: we consider the risks and make sensible decisions which allow people to make informed choices.

It is also difficult to suggest that legalizing and regulating physician-assisted death, in other words, by allowing positive actions that lead to death, raises risks beyond those created by the legal act of withdrawing life-support, a situation in which a patient is often not able to make any kind of informed decision.

My prediction? The court will be near unanimous in granting Canadians the right to physician-assisted death. The appeal will mark the second time in less than two years that the Supreme Court has been asked to address an issue of broad societal importance, the previous one being in Bedford.

Interested to see how it goes down? Watch the live webcast of the hearing on October 15 beginning at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time. Judgment to follow approximately six months later.