CRIM 2253 PROJECT
SUE RODRIGUEZ, EUTHANASIA AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC OPINION
1990-95
CHRIS MCCORMICK
INTRODUCTION
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Various forms of euthanasia
-- passive – disconnected from life support
-- active – high dose pain medication
-- choosing the right to die
Sue Rodriguez petitioned for the right to die
Supreme Court refused
The public debate, editorial content and commentaries in
the Globe and Mail is the focus of this project
• 1993, Sue Rodriguez
petitioned Supreme Court of
Canada to hear her case for
assisted suicide
• SCC ruled against her 5-4
• 1992, similar case heard in
Quebec, the case of Nancy B.,
who petitioned the court for the
right to turn off life-sustaining
equipment was successful
• Entered public debate
• Special senate committee in
1995 recommended
euthanasia and assisted
suicide remain illegal
TOPIC
SIGNIFICANCE
• Euthanasia seen in moral term
• Most private morality taken
from the law: contraception,
abortion, gambling,
homosexuality and alcohol
• Seen from society's point of
view rather than individual's,
overdeterming social wishes
onto the person
• Sue Rodriguez's case
conflated with Nancy B.,
Robert Latimer, and others
• Euthanasia on public agenda
again: Quebec provincial
commission, Dying with Dignity
has begun public hearings in
August on assisted suicide and
ethics of euthanasia
• Provinces can’t change criminal
law, but medical care falls under
provincial jurisdiction.
• Administration of justice also
provincial matter, and whether
someone is charged for assisted
suicide is up to provincial
prosecutors
• Public opinion in line with change,
however Canadian Medical
Association doesn’t support
euthanasia or assisted suicide
• Two polls, Quebec medical doctors
and the public, found 75% of those
surveyed in favour of euthanasia.
• Muddying the waters are medical
practices which skirt definition of
euthanasia, eg. palliative sedation
• Lining up to debate these
questions are groups which have
their agendas for or against
• Eg. Nancy Beth Cruzan case, US
Eg. “Street preacher
expresses opinions in
front of U.S. Supreme
Court”
•
“Dan Martino, a street preacher
from Chattanooga, Tennessee,
argues with Adrienne Gillespie,
15, of Layton, Utah, over the
controversial “right-to-die” case
before the Supreme Court on
December 6, 1989. The court
heard arguments in the case of
Nancy Beth Cruzan, a 32-year
old Missourian woman who has
been in a coma since a January
11, 1983 accident. Her parents
are fighting the state over their
right to remove Nancy Beth’s
feeding tube. …” (UPI
Photo/Matt Mendelsohn/Files)
Source: http://www.upi.com/enlwin/f319affcb6f4507609fb89b712e
f1af1/
INTRODUCTION TO MEDIA ANALYSIS
• Study of how social issues discussed in the news: social
constructionist approach.
• Deviance created as media topic by those with power to define
public issues
• Marginals more easily described as deviant in mainstream media
• --eg. motorcycle gangs, school dropouts, musicians, drug users
• However, mainstream issues, actors get 'constructed' as well.
• --what happens when a middle-class person, who is otherwise lawconforming, engages in a deviant act? Cohen said:
•
"The uneasiness about actors who are not quite in their place
can lead to greater hostility. Something done by an out-group is
simply condemned and fitted into the scheme of things, but in-group
deviance is embarrassing, it threatens the norms of the group and
tends to blur its boundaries with the out-group."
• When a normal person says they want to do something deviant,
declares it in public, and asks for permission?
• --how is that treated, reacted to and defined?
• Pilot sample on public debate
• Globe and Mail, editorial opinion,
1990-95
• Search used phrase ‘sue
rodriguez’
• Initial search yielded 4
commentaries, 6 editorials, and
11 letters to the editor
• Second search used search
phrase ‘sue rodriguez’
• Overall: 2 cartoons, 8
commentaries, 6 editorials, 4
illustrations, and 17 letters
• Excluding overlap, the enhanced
sample is about 58 pieces for
period 1990-96
METHOD
PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS
• Most editorials advocated
parliamentary discussion
• Most letters written in support
• Illustrations seemed critical
• Overall tone progressive
• "The law prohibits assistance to
suicide for some good reasons.
Society does not look neutrally on
suicide as a solution to emotional
problems. Society regards such
suicides as tragic, and actively seeks
to prevent them. The only suicide that
might conceivably receive social
sanction is that of a terminally ill
patent, and even then, deep taboos
exist around the taking of a human
life. If such taboos were overcome,
many practical issues would still need
to be addressed to ensure that free
will, considered judgment and
independent mind prevailed. ... MP
Svend Robinson has introduced a
private member's bill in the House of
Commons that would decriminalize
physician-assisted suicides in some
circumstances. The Commons is the
proper forum for this debate, Ms.
Rodriguez' immediate and profoundly
sad circumstances nothwithstanding.
Mr. Robinson's bill should be granted
a generous hearing." (GM 12.31.92)
EDITORIAL ANALYSIS
• six editorials in first sample (Aug 15, 1991; Nov 29, 1991; Oct 2,
1993; Feb 15, 1994; Aug 18, 1994; and, Mar 6, 1995)
• --editorials call for public debate, and a free vote
• --do not believe courts should decide (Sue), but that individuals
should decide (Nancy)
• --overall responsibility in medical/political establishment
• five (new) editorials in second sample (Dec 21, 1992; Feb 11, 1993;
Jul 26, 1993; and, May 9, 1996)
• confirms first: individual rights should be respected, courts should
not be the place to make that (moral) choice but rather Parliament,
and that there needs to be a public, free debate on the issue
• However the irony that the courts should not decide (legally) on a
moral matter, but that Parliament should decide (morally) on a legal
matter, seems to have escaped the editorialist's notice.
CONCLUSION
• This project has looked at the topic of euthanasia, and more
specifically at the case of Sue Rodriguez, and its coverage in the
national press
• The editorial analysis shows cautious approval of the individual right
to choose, pessimism about the ability of the court to (legally) decide
the moral issue, and optimism about the (moral) ability of Parliament
to decide the legal issue
• This topic is important because the law discriminates against a
person's right to control their body. We’ve come a long way from
when we prosecuted people for attempted/suicide, and maybe we
should move further along in allowing assisted suicide in law as it
already is in practice.
• After all, as Sue said, “whose life is this, who owns my body?”
REFERENCES
•
"Euthanasia on the public agenda again," Chris McCormick, Daily Gleaner,
Crime Matters, September 9, 2010
•
"The history of euthanasia debates in the United States and Britain," Ezekiel
J. Emanuel, Annals of Internal Medicine, November 15, 1994, 121,10: 793802
•
"Dying with dignity: Developments in the field of euthanasia in the
Netherlands," H.J. Leenen, Medicine and Law, 1989, 8(5):517-26.
•
"Domestic 'zealotry' and press discourse: Kevorkian's euthanasia incident,"
Joseph Turow, Arthur Caplan, and John Bracken, Journalism, 2000, 1,2:
197-206
•
Cohen, S. (1973). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. St Albans: Paladin
•
•
Videos: Sue Rodriguez and the Right-To-Die Debate
'Who owns my life?'