Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T21:12:06.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Social-Ethical Values Issues in the Political Public Square: Principles vs. Packages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Margaret Somerville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article explores decision making about social-ethical values issues by members of the public in the context of the recent Canadian federal election, held in late June 2004. All of these issues are sensitive and controversial, and I hesitated to address them in an article that I dedicate, with respect and admiration, to my friend and fellow medical lawyer-ethicist, Bernard Dickens. Over the years Bernie and I have discussed, debated and disagreed on many of them. It speaks to his tolerance, reasonableness and wisdom that those occasions were for me always ones of learning and respect, colored by his inimitable sense of humor. I hope that Bernie feels that, in some small measure, this article reflects those same characteristics, ones that he has modeled for so many of us over the years of his distinguished career.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Winter 2004 , pp. 731 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Somerville, M., “Justice Across the Generations,” Social Science & Medicine 29, no. 3 (1989): 385–394, at 386–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnell, J., “Attack Ads Turned the Tide for Liberals,” The [Montreal] Gazette, July 2, 2004: A21Google Scholar
Somerville, M., in Cere, D. and Farrow, D., eds., What About the Children? Divorcing Marriage (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004): 63–78.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Maggie and Baker, Joshua K., “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” 4 Margins Law Journal 161 (2004) in press.Google Scholar
Eskridge, W. Jr., “Channeling: Identity-Based Social Movements and Public Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150 (2001): at 419–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Holpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., (2002) 60 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont. Ct. App.).Google Scholar
Somerville, M., Letter to Editor, “Gay Marriage and Slippery Slopes,” National Post (Canada), August 19, 2004, at A-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (UK) 1982, c.11, sec. 7.Google Scholar
See, for example, R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1SCR 301 (Supreme Court of Canada).Google Scholar
Somerville, M., The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit (New York: Penguin, 2002): 24–28.Google Scholar
See R. v. Morgentaler, supra note 9.Google Scholar
Criminal Code RSC 1985, c.C-46 (as amended), sec. 251(4).Google Scholar
Ibid, sec. 223(2).Google Scholar
Ibid. sec. 223(1).Google Scholar
Personal communication, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, June 2004.Google Scholar
Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy (Abortion) and Contraception Act (1975).Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973).Google Scholar
Somerville, M., “Faith and Politics: Uneasy Mix,” Globe & Mail (Toronto), August 8, 2003, at A15.Google Scholar
See Farrow, D., ed., Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
See Somerville, , supra note 10, 17–21.Google Scholar
Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004, c. 2 (Parliament of Canada).Google Scholar
Ibid. sec.5(1)(a).Google Scholar
Ibid. sec5 (1)(b).Google Scholar
Ibid. sec. 8(3).Google Scholar
Ibid. sec. 40(2).Google Scholar
See Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Proceed with Care, Minister of Government Services, Canada, (1993).Google Scholar
Somerville, M., “Birth, Death and Technoscience: Searching for Meaning at the Margins of Life,” in Farrow, , ed., supra note 19:99–115, at 101.Google Scholar
Somerville, M., ‘Death Talk’: The Case against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002): 77–78, 299–302.Google Scholar
Ibid, chapter 7, “Euthanasia by Confusion”: 119–143.Google Scholar
Bill C-203, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (terminally ill persons), The House of Commons of Canada, 3rd Session, 34th Parliament, 40 Elizabeth II (1991). Bill C-261, Euthanasia and Cessation of Treatment Act, The House of Commons of Canada, 34th Parliament, 40 Elizabeth II (1991).Google Scholar
Rodriguez v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] SCR 519 (Supreme Court of Canada).Google Scholar
In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, as set out in Order in Council P.C.2003–1005, dated July 16, 2003 (Canada).Google Scholar
See, Interaction Council, Chairman’s Report, International Humanitarian Law, Humanitarian Crises and Military Intervention, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, 22–23 April, 2002: at <http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/Pdf/InterActionCouncil2002.pdf>(last visited November 9, 2004).(last+visited+November+9,+2004).>Google Scholar
Mulgrew, I., “Cotler Blew Pot Bill,” The [Montreal] Gazette, November 4, 2004, at A.23.Google Scholar
Canada Health Act 1984, c. 6.Google Scholar
The Constitution Act 1867 (The British North America Act) UK, now The Constitution Act 1982, sec 92.Google Scholar
Elections Canada, at <http://www.nodice.ca/election2004/voterturnout.html> (last visited November 9, 2004).+(last+visited+November+9,+2004).>Google Scholar