Affidavit of Michael Bach in Carter Case

SCC File No. 35591

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA)

BETWEEN:

LEE CARTER, HOLLIS JOHNSON, DR. WILLIAM SHOICHET, THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION and GLORIA TAYLOR

APPLICANTS
(Respondents/Cross-Appellants)
- and -

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
RESPONDENT
(Appellant/Cross-Respondent)
- and -

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
RESPONDENT
(Appellant)

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL BACH

I, Michael Bach, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Association for Community Living, in the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, AFFIRM AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Association for Community Living (“CACL”) and as such have personal knowledge of the matters described in this affidavit, save and except for matters identified as being on information and belief, in which case I identify the source of my information and belief, which I verily believe to be true.

2. I affirm this affidavit on behalf of the Canadian Association for Community Living in support of a motion to intervene in the application for leave in the above noted matter.

Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL)

3. CACL is a national not-for-profit association with a long-standing history of defending the rights of and advocating for the interests of persons with intellectual disabilities.

4. CACL was founded in 1958. Over the years, CACL has become one of Canada’s ten largest charitable organizations. It is composed of ten provincial and three territorial associations, with over four hundred local associations spread across the country and more than forty thousand members. Persons with intellectual disabilities play an integral role in the decision-making process of CACL. At least three members of the Board of Directors must be persons who self-identify as having an intellectual disability. CACL is dedicated to promoting the participation of persons with intellectual disabilities in all aspects of community life.

5. CACL has extensive experience in law, policy and life outcomes for persons with intellectual disabilities. It provides leadership on the issue of inclusion and rights of persons with intellectual disabilities. CACL promotes public awareness of inclusion and intellectual disability and fosters leadership of families in their communities. CACL leads community change through partnerships with key sectors and puts research to work to inform, lead and support efforts for full inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in Canada and around the world.

6. CACL’s work includes:

• promoting accessible and inclusive government programs, policies, and services;
• promoting the development of policies, programs, services, and supports for the meaningful inclusion of persons with intellectual disabilities in the community;
• supporting individuals with intellectual disabilities to find meaningful jobs; and
• advocating for the closure of all institutions that house people with intellectual disabilities in Canada and abroad.

7. CACL is active in its efforts to turn its vision of full rights for people with intellectual disabilities into reality. To further this goal, CACL undertakes to:

• provide a communications and support network for persons with intellectual disabilities and their families;
• support over three hundred provincial, territorial, and local Associations for Community Living;
• work with all levels of government to advance the interests of persons with intellectual disabilities; and
• produce newsletters, magazines, journals and other publications relating to activities and issues about community living and persons with intellectual disabilities.

8. CACL’s work in this regard is also supported by its sponsorship of the Institute for Research on Inclusion and Society (IRIS), a leading disability research and resource centre. IRIS undertakes research and analysis of public policy issues, including delivery of community-based services, and through this work raises public awareness about barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from fully participating in society. IRIS was formerly the L’Institut Roeher Institute.

9. CACL is Canada’s national member of Inclusion International, a federation of over two hundred national member associations from around the world, committed to the full citizenship and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities.

10. Persons with intellectual disabilities play a vital role in the decision-making process at CACL. Persons with intellectual disabilities provide CACL with guidance and advice on how the organization can best serve the interests of persons with intellectual disabilities. In accordance with the by-laws of CACL, at least three of the members of the Board of Directors of CACL must be persons who self-identify as people with intellectual disabilities.

11. CACL has been actively sought out and consulted by the government of Canada on a variety of issues concerning the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities, including the development of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

12. CACL has been granted leave to intervene, either independently or in a coalition, in numerous cases before the Supreme Court of Canada, including:

• Frederick Moore on behalf of Jeffrey P. Moore v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Education et al., (B.C.) (SCC Docket: 34040/34041) (concerning equal access to public education services for students with disabilities who require accommodation);
• Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) et al. v. Barbara Cunningham et al., 2011 SCC 3 (concerning the meaning of “ameliorative programs” in section 15(2) of the Charter);
• Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650, 2007 SCC 15 (concerning the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities in transportation);
• Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 706, 2005 SCC 57 (concerning the discriminatory impact and effects of the medical inadmissibility provisions of Canada’s immigration scheme on adults and children with disabilities and their families, who are seeking to immigrate to Canada);
• Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 177, 2005 SCC 12 (concerning the interpretation of Nova Scotia’s Adult Protection Act and what constitutes the “best interests” of an adult found to be in need of protection, and who is best placed to make that determination);
• Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. Newfoundland Assn. of Public Employees, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381, 2004 SCC 66 (concerning the test to be used to justify a violation of the Charter, pursuant to s. 1);
• Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 1 3 S.C.R. 657, 2004 SCC 78 (concerning the allocation of public resources for supports and services for children with autism specifically and/or persons with disabilities more broadly);
• R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 1 (concerning cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter and its implications to the murder of a child with a disability);
• Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241 (concerning the right of children with disabilities under s. 15 of the Charter to an integrated education);
• R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933 (concerning the treatment of persons acquitted in the criminal context by reason of “insanity”);
• Re: Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388 (concerning the right of persons with intellectual disabilities to be free from non-therapeutic sterilization without their consent (through the Consumer Advisory Committee));
• Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpson-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 (concerning the appropriate test to be applied in the adjudication of statutory human rights complaints); and
• Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561 (concerning the interpretation of the bona fide occupational requirement and the undue hardship test in statutory human rights claims).

The Trial of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)

13. I am informed by the appeal book and the trial judgement, and do verily believe, that on April 26, 2011, the Applicants, with the exception of Gloria Taylor, filed a Notice of Civil Claim and Notice of Application under the Constitutional Question Act. Gloria Taylor joined the action as a plaintiff on August 15, 2011.

14. On August 3, 2011, the Honourable Madam Justice Lynn Smith set this matter down for summary trial, to commence November 14, 2011. She set the Applicants’ deadline to file and serve materials by August 30, 2011 and Canada’s deadline to file and serve by September 30, 2011.

15. The Applicants delivered their evidence between August 26 and September 2, 2011. Including the evidence delivered in reply, the Applicants filed more than 80 affidavits, approximately 37 of which were expert affidavits. Canada had only 30 days to obtain and file evidence in response.

16. At a Case Planning Conference on September 2, 2011, Canada sought an extension of the deadlines for evidence and a delay to the commencement of the hearing. In particular, Canada required additional time to put forward evidence on how the legalization of assisted suicide would reinforce prejudices faced by persons with disabilities. Attached as Exhibit C is a true copy of an excerpt from the transcript of the Case Planning Conference on September, 2, 2011, where Canada made these requests.

17. Justice Smith denied Canada’s requests for modified timelines.

18. Canada reiterated its concerns about the deficient record, and the need for additional time, at another case conference on November 8, 2011. Again, Justice Smith denied Canada’s request to revise the timelines for trial. Attached as Exhibit D is a true copy of an excerpt from the transcript of the Case Planning Conference on November 8, 2011, where Canada made these requests.

19. As a result of these rushed timelines, Canada only produced 21 affidavits to make out its case. Canada was unable to complete its evidence on the negative impact of doctor-assisted suicide on persons with disabilities.

20. Instead, the Applicants’ evidence made up the majority of material before Justice Smith on this issue.

21. Having chosen the forum and the procedure, the Applicants were able to have their affidavits fully prepared before filing. Canada’s identification and selection of witnesses and their preparation of affidavits was necessarily done in haste.

22. In addition, in their reply, the Applicants made new arguments and new references to evidence, outside the scope of a proper reply. Canada requested a right of sur-reply to answer these new allegations. Justice Smith denied this request, depriving the factual record of additional evidence from Canada and useful critique of the Applicants’ new evidence.

23. Justice Smith ultimately found in favour of the Applicants. She ruled that section 241 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringed sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) and therefore was of no force or effect. In her reasons for judgment, Justice Smith found that, although “persons with disabilities face prejudice and stereotyping and that there is a risk of unconscious bias about the quality of life of a person with a disability,” she was “not persuaded that the risks to persons with disabilities are such that they cannot be avoided through practices of careful and well-informed capacity assessments by qualified physicians who are alert to those risks.”

24. When Justice Smith evaluated the threats posed by doctor-assisted suicide to persons with disabilities, she did so on the basis of a factual record composed mainly of evidence submitted by the Applicants. This evidence favoured the Applicants’ position that any risks posed by doctor-assisted suicide to persons with disabilities could be managed.

25. On appeal, Canada did not move to adduce the evidence missing from the record. Instead, Canada identified the incomplete factual record, as well as the denied right of sur-reply, as factors weighing in favour of the appeal being allowed and the trial judgement being overturned. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true copy of excerpts from the factum filed by the Attorney General of Canada at the BCCA, outlining these arguments.

26. CCD and CACL jointly intervened at the BCCA to argue that Justice Smith’s decision should be overturned. CCD and CACL included in their oral submissions their concerns regarding the incomplete and unbalanced factual record.

27. A majority of the BCCA overturned Justice Smith’s decision. The majority found this Court’s decision in Rodriguez applied, by virtue of stare decisis, to conclusively decide the issues. Although the majority did not address Canada’s arguments on the deficient record and the denied sur-reply, Finch J.A. did review these procedural questions in his dissent.

28. On October 25, 2013, the Applicants sought leave to appeal the BCCA’s ruling.

29. The factual record from trial, as it currently stands, remains deficient on the risks posed to persons with disabilities by legalized assisted suicide.

30. Due to the compressed timelines of the trial, there is a disparity in the evidence on the record. The Applicants filed more than 80 affidavits, 37 of which were from experts. The Applicants controlled the initiation of the action and could prepare its evidence accordingly.

31. In comparison, Canada was assigned 30 days in which to respond with its evidence. Significantly, Canada was unable to complete its evidence on how the legalization of assisted suicide would reinforce prejudices faced by persons with disabilities and, in turn, increase their vulnerability under laws approving assisted suicide.

32. Of the affidavits Canada submitted, only 3 addressed, in any depth, the dangers of doctor-assisted suicide to persons with disabilities.[1] Two affidavits came from witnesses who discussed their personal experiences with assisted suicide, as persons with disabilities. Only one affidavit came from an expert – Professor Catherine Frazee – on this critical issue.

33. Professor Frazee’s hastily prepared affidavit provided preliminary evidence on the risks of doctor-assisted suicide to persons with disabilities and the negative prejudices that doctor-assisted suicide reinforces.

34. Apart from Professor Frazee’s affidavit, the trial record lacked evidence from prominent authorities on the harms of doctor-assisted suicide to persons with disabilities.

35. For example, Canada did not lead expert affidavits from Wesley J. Smith, Carol Gill, or Margaret Somerville, all of whom have written extensively on the perils posed by legalized assisted suicide to persons with disabilities.[2] Canada also did not showcase extensive evidence from other notable voices who identify the dangers of legalized assisted suicide for persons with disabilities, such as Paul Longmore and Diane Coleman.[3]

36. Evidence was not adduced critiquing the methodology in studies accepted by the trial judge, which were based on the evidence of physicians who had already ended the lives of persons with disabilities. For example, there was no evidence from experts in research methodology critiquing the evidence of key witnesses for the Applicants who based their studies on data from physicians who had already ended a person’s life (such as the study from Margaret Battin and others).

37. Canada has not confirmed whether it canvassed international authorities for evidence of the harms of assisted suicide for persons with disabilities. Research from jurisdictions with legalized assisted suicide, like the Netherlands or Belgium, may have been missed due to language barriers and the shortened timelines.[4]

38. In addition, there are countless materials that provide perspectives on how abelist notions create prejudices regarding worth and dignity in the lives of persons with disabilities. The trial court would have benefited from additional evidence on how these prejudices infiltrate medical treatment and decisions around assisted suicide, even with the presence of safeguards.

39. In the absence of complete evidence from Canada, Justice Smith relied upon the Applicants’ evidence to determine the risks of assisted suicide to persons with disabilities. While being skewed in favour of their position, even the Applicants’ trial evidence did not conclusively show that safeguards could prevent the risks of assisted suicide to all “vulnerable” parties, according to Justice Smith.

40. For example, Justice Smith relies extensively upon a study by the Applicants’ expert, Professor Margaret Battin, to analyze the impact of assisted-suicide on persons with disabilities.[5] Justice Smith notes, however, that the study does not address the question of persons who are “situationally vulnerable” to assisted suicide, due to “coercion or the desire not to be a burden.”

41. Under legalized assisted suicide, certain individuals with disabilities will be vulnerable precisely for these “situational” reasons, as Professor Catherine Frazee suggested in her evidence at trial - because prejudices about disability, promulgated by the abelist mainstream, increase the likelihood that “coercion” and the “desire not to be a burden” will push persons with disabilities into assisted suicide.

42. As these examples show, the trial record is severely lacking in evidence documenting the harmful impact and effects of assisted suicide on persons with disabilities.

CACL’s Intervention at the British Columbia Court of Appeal

43. CACL, jointly with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (“CCD”), intervened at the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (“BCCA”) in this matter, as severely limited by the order of Justice Neilsen. Their joint submissions focused primarily on the equality rights and value of the lives of persons with disabilities.

44. Before the BCCA, the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”) argued that an appeal should be allowed, in part, because Canada was not able to complete its evidence at trial on the prejudices of legalized assisted suicide to persons with disabilities. Canada did not bring a motion to adduce new evidence at the appeal, in order to complete the record.

45. CACL and CCD were actively considering intervening in a contemporaneous case on a comparable issue before the Quebec courts called Leblanc. I was aware, based on information which I verily believe from Catherine Frazee, who submitted affidavit evidence in both cases, that the record in Leblanc was more complete than the record in Carter. CACL and CCD therefore reasonably expected that both cases would ultimately be jointly heard by this Court. The Leblanc application was withdrawn prior to the argument of Carter in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which means this Court will not have the benefit of a more complete record.

46. Based in part on the withdrawal of the Leblanc application, and also influenced by the decision of Canada not to bring a motion to adduce new evidence or to advise the Court on the potential impact of the evidence it was denied the opportunity to call, CACL and CCD instructed counsel to submit orally that it would be unjust for an issue of such consequence for persons with disabilities to be decided on the basis of an incomplete record. In particular CACL and CCD were concerned that the record did not adequately consider the dangers striking down the Criminal Code prohibitions on assisted suicide and euthanasia would create for persons with disabilities.

CACL’s Contributions to the Issue of Doctor-Assisted Suicide

47. Certain principles and values have guided CACL’s work on behalf of persons with intellectual disabilities.

48. CACL believes that all people are entitled to respect and equality based on recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of every person. This means that all individuals have equal worth regardless of their intellectual abilities, real or perceived. As full citizens, people with intellectual disabilities have contributions to make to their families, communities and society. CACL believes that all individuals possess a capacity for growth and therefore must be nourished intellectually, socially and spiritually (as they choose). Moreover, each person is entitled to equal access and opportunity.

49. Community living is a simple concept. Most Canadians live in integrated communities, attend neighbourhood schools and work with peers. However, for people with intellectual disabilities, these ordinary experiences continue to be far from reality for many. Early in their lives, persons with intellectual disabilities are often excluded from regular activities because of prejudicial and stereotypical attitudes and beliefs regarding their disability.

50. CACL believes that an essential feature of self-determination is the appropriate provision of disability-related supports and services. Disability-related supports are a wide range of goods or services that assist persons with disabilities to overcome barriers and facilitate social and economic participation in community life. With these supports, persons with intellectual disabilities enjoy equal opportunity to participate as full citizens in our communities.

51. In light of these principles and values, the CACL has advocated for the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities in regards to assisted suicide. In 1994, CACL strongly urged the Senate Committee on Euthanasia not to legalize euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. The organization reasoned that the practices would mean that “people who are perceived to be less valuable and their families will face increasing pressure and reinforcing messages regarding their value to society”. CACL remains concerned that persons with disabilities, whose quality of life is judged by others to be unacceptable, would not be strongly supported to resist self-destructive impulses.

52. In 2010 CACL appeared before the House of Commons Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care. It expressed the view that “quality of life assessments” distort the advice of medical professionals and place the lives of people with intellectual disabilities in “immediate peril”. The report documented a pattern of “continued and active devaluation of people with disabilities – particularly those with complex medical needs and significant support needs – in our medical system today.”

53. CACL, jointly with CCD, agree with Professor Catherine Frazee, who, in her evidence at the trial of Carter, stated, “support for legalizing assisted suicide is strongly linked to a fear of disability and a devaluation of the lives of disabled people. Much of the discourse on assisted suicide is rooted in an ableist perspective about adaptive technologies and reduced capacities – a perspective that equates impairment with indignity and suffering. Moreover, the very discourse about assisted suicide has done much to reinforce public prejudice and fear about disability.”

CACL’s Joint Motion for Intervention on the Application for Leave

(i) CACL’s Position and Submissions Regarding Leave

54. It is the position of CACL, jointly with CCD, that leave to appeal should be denied in this case. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are the joint submissions of CCD and CACL, in support of their position, should this Court allow their motion to intervene.

(ii) CACL’s Interest in the Application for Leave

CACL has a Real and Direct Interest at Stake in the Leave Application

55. As mentioned above, CACL has a history of advocacy on behalf of persons with intellectual disabilities. Through its representation and advocacy efforts, CACL has gained deep knowledge of the prejudices faced by persons with intellectual disabilities, both generally and in relation to assisted suicide.

56. CACL realizes the importance of information detailing the prejudices faced by persons with intellectual disabilities, in the context of determinations of their rights. CACL has intervened in numerous court actions, and contributed to policy debates, in order to present information of this kind.

57. This is especially true on the issue of assisted suicide. CACL agrees with the opinion expressed by Professor Catherine Frazee, in her affidavit filed at the trial of this action, that persons with disabilities experience disproportionate “denial or withdrawal of life-saving treatment, presumptive steering towards DNR orders and/or premature surrender to ‘comfort care”. At the heart of these accounts are fundamental assumptions about the quality of life of persons with intellectual disabilities, leading to the devaluation of their lives.

58. As mentioned before, these debates concern life and death decisions affecting persons with intellectual disabilities. As such they must be made cautiously, and on the basis of as much information as possible. CACL is deeply concerned that a decision by the trial judge to impose an expedited procedure in this case resulted in an incomplete record. In particular, CACL does not believe that Canada was afforded a just or sufficient opportunity to call evidence concerning the impact legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would have on persons with disabilities. Having recently participated in an open and democratic legislative process in which these issues were considered from every possible perspective, it is deeply concerned that any judicial intervention be based on consideration of the best available evidence, and following consideration of all intertwined public policy issues. Instead, CACL is of the view that this did not occur in this case.

59. If leave to appeal is granted, without the record being supplemented, persons with intellectual disabilities will be disproportionately disadvantaged.

60. As a continuing advocate and representative of the rights and interests of persons with intellectual disabilities, CACL has a real and direct interest in ensuring that this Court is informed about the implications of a deficient record, for the determination of leave to appeal.

CACL’s Relevant and Necessary Input

61. CACL has received no confirmation that Canada, or another party with standing, will identify the deficient record in response to the leave application. CACL believes it is absolutely crucial that this point – and the related implications to persons with intellectual disabilities that the deficient record creates – be raised at the leave stage.

62. Without confirmation that this point will be raised by a party with standing, another party, representing the interests of persons with disabilities prejudiced by the inadequacy of the record, should be permitted to make the argument. CACL and CCD, with their broad based representation, expertise and history before the courts, are well-equipped to do so.

CACL’s Input is Different and Useful

63. CACL, given its experience advocating for persons with intellectual disabilities on the issue of assisted suicide, is able to provide unique insights into the implications of a deficient factual record. No other party can provide this perspective with the same level of experience and expertise that CACL can, owing to its history of efforts representing persons with intellectual disabilities.

64. The joint submissions of CACL and CCD point out sources that could have been included in Canada’s evidence, which may have been useful to understanding the harms posed by assisted suicide to persons with disabilities, and those with intellectual disabilities. This is another unique contribution that CACL, jointly with CCD, can make.

65. CACL brings a unique perspective to the application for leave to appeal. CACL is the only national organization representing persons with intellectual disabilities in Canada. Because its purpose is to promote the lives and community participation of persons with intellectual disabilities in all aspects of society and law, including in health care and social supports, CACL is concerned that, if leave to appeal is granted in an action with a deficient factual record, the proceeding re-opening of the debate around doctor assisted-suicide will undermine and threaten the lives of persons with intellectual disabilities.

Prejudice to CACL or Others

66. CACL cannot see how its intervention will prejudice other parties in the application for leave. CACL is not seeking costs on its motion to intervene, nor does it seek to delay the hearing of the leave application.

67. CACL, on the other hand, will be prejudiced if it cannot provide its perspective, jointly with CCD, on the leave application.

68. CACL intervened at the BCCA because the Criminal Code prohibition on assisted suicide is of fundamental importance to persons with intellectual disabilities. As advocates of persons with intellectual disabilities, CACL has a strong interest in the jurisprudential principles and the legal analytical issues that lie at the heart of the decision to which leave to appeal is being sought, in particular, the protection of life.

69. If leave to appeal is granted on a deficient record, the harms to persons with intellectual disabilities, in relation to assisted suicide, will not be fully weighed. The individuals, rights and interests that CACL represents will be prejudiced, unless CACL has an opportunity to voice these concerns.

Conclusion

70. For all of the above reasons, CACL, jointly with CCD, have taken the unusual step of bringing a motion to intervene on the leave application, to ensure that this Court has full insight into the deficient and unbalanced factual record, and the resulting impact on persons with intellectual disabilities, in assessing whether to grant leave to appeal in this case.

71. CACL requests that it be allowed to intervene, jointly with CCD, on the leave application, without prejudice to its right to apply as an intervener in the appeal, if leave is granted.

72. CACL will does not seek an award of costs on this motion and requests that there be no costs awarded against it.

73. I make this affidavit in good faith and for no other or improper purpose. AFFIRMED BEFORE ME at the City of Toronto, on November , 2013.

Sarah Mohamed LSUC#: 61944P Commissioner for taking affidavits

MICHAEL BACH

• [1] Affidavit of David Martin (Joint Appeal Book at BCCA, Vol. 19, p. 6815), Affidavit of Rhonda Wiebe (Joint Appeal Book at BCCA, Vol. 23, p. 7813), and Affidavit of Professor Catherine Frazee (Joint Appeal Book at BCCA, Vol. 36, p. 12101).
• [2] See, for example, Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 2003); Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die (New York: Encounter Books, 2007); Wesley J. Smith, Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America (New York: Encounter Books, 2000); Carol J. Gill et. al., Physician Assisted Death in the Context of Disability in Robert F. Weir, ed, Physician-Assisted Suicide (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1997); Carol Gill et. al., Christine K. Cassel & Kristi L. Kirschner, Physician Assisted Death in the Context of Disability in Robert F. Weir, ed, Physician- Assisted Suicide (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1997); Margaret Somerville, Death Talk: the Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001).
• [3] See, for example, Paul K. Longmore, “Policy, Prejudice, and Reality: Two Cases Studies of Physician-Assisted Suicide” (2005) 16:44 J Disabil Policy Stud 44; Darrel W. Amundsen et. al., “Our Lives and Ideologies: The Effect of Life Experience on the Perceived Morality of the Policy of Physician-Assisted Suicide” (2005) 16:1 J Disabil Policy Stud 53; Marilyn Golden et. al., “Killing us softly: the dangers of legalizing assisted suicide,” Disability and Health Journal 3 (2010) 16-30; Richard Radtke, “A Case Against Physician-Assisted Suicide” (2005) 16:1 J Disabil Policy Stud 58.
• [4] See, for example, Kenneth Chambaere et. al, “Physician-assisted deaths under the euthanasia law in Belgium: a population-based survey,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 17, 2010, online: www.cmaj.ca.
• [5] See, for example, Merope Pavlides, “Whose Choice is it Anyway? Disability and Suicide in Four Contemporary Films” (2005) 16:1 J Disabil Policy Stud 46; M. Buljevac et. al., “The stigma of disability: Croatian experiences” (2012) 34:9 Disabil Rehabil 725.