The UCP is so corrupt.

So, no, the Court didn't invent a right. It decided that, following the evolution of jurisprudence and better understanding of Charter rights that has arisen over the years, and because of where medicine and society is at, that its previous decision in Rodriguez was no longer justified.

Of course, the state cannot effectively criminalize suicide (attempted suicide used to be a crime, but not for a long time). The Carter decision was about whether the state could prevent others, namely physicians, from assisting an individual's desire to die on that individual's own terms.

Hence, any restriction on an individual's right to die on that individual's own terms is an infringement of that individual's rights, namely the right to security of person.

Ultimately, though, the question is one as to who has the right to determine how much pain and suffering an individual should endure; who should decide if someone's life is still worth living.

In my view, the only correct answer is the individual in question is the only one with that right.

MAiD is certainly a controversial subject. I, personally, hope to never be in a position where I have to make that choice. For moral reasons, I would likely refuse it. Fortunately, my right to do so remains protected and guaranteed.

The reaction to the Carter and subsequent decisions relating to MAiD seem to entirely, in my view, miscromprehend the nature of guaranteed freedoms and the role of the courts in protecting same. The courts are not engaging in judicial activism and inventing rights. They are doing what they should.