Thank you.
My question relates to mature minors. It's directed to the BC Civil Liberties Association as well as to Mr. Cameron.
If the Supreme Court contemplated mature minors—persons under the age of 18—having euthanasia or assisted suicide available to them, why would the court not simply have said so? Instead, the court repeatedly—at paragraph 68, paragraph 127, paragraph 147—referred to a competent “adult person” as opposed to a competent “person”. Indeed, when you look at paragraph 111 of the decision, the court went so far as to say that euthanasia for minors “would not fall within the parameters suggested” by the court.
I'd be interested in your comments.