Contributed by Darena Muça
Mental illness is a serious problem that impacts all members of society. Mental illness or addiction issues will affect approximately one out of five Canadians in their lifetime, according to the Center of Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). In 2004, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology issued an Interim Report on Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction, which revealed high rates of psychological distress (depression and anxiety) among the Canadian workforce. However, certain professions are more acutely affected by mental illness. According to a survey from 2012 by the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), 58% of lawyers, judges, and law students surveyed had experienced significant stress/burnout, 48% had experienced anxiety and 25% had suffered from depression. This article examines how excessive working hours, difficulties balancing work and life, and a high-pressure and competitive environment may contribute to high incidences of mental illness in the legal profession.
Excessive working hours
The standard number of hours worked by employees in federally regulated industries is 40 hours per week, with a maximum of 48 hours per week in some cases. However, these provisions do not apply to all employees, and certain professions such as lawyers, are excluded from these national standards. As such, as suggested in the Senate’s report, lawyers might be at a higher risk of psychological distress because of excessive working hours. Continue reading “Elevated Incidence of Mental Illness in the Legal Profession”
Contributed by Alanna Crouse
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a scientific paper in the highly prestigious journal The Lancet proclaiming a connection between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. It was later discovered that Wakefield’s study not only exemplified bad science but was outright fraudulent. An extensive investigation revealed that Wakefield altered the data to make it fit his claim and that his research was funded by lawyers who were representing parents involved in a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers. Together, these findings shook the scientific community and led The Lancet to retract the paper. Unfortunately, it was too late, as the anti-vaccination movement had already begun.
Contrary to Wakefield’s claim, vaccines are one of the great marvels of the medical world. Prior to their discovery, infectious diseases were the leading cause of death worldwide. After they came into use in Canada, death by infectious disease fell to 5% of all deaths across the country. Accordingly, cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and diphtheria all dropped by 99%, while polio was eradicated altogether. Thus, in a matter of decades, we put to rest some of the most prominent causes of death in the world.
Despite the drastic improvement in public health and two decades’ worth of evidence establishing the safety of vaccines, Wakefield’s unscientific and unethical publication has emboldened a public health crisis that remains in full effect today. A Canadian study in 2010 revealed that 65% of women and 72% of men either believed the MMR vaccine was unsafe, or they were unsure whether or not it caused autism. This attitude has manifested in what organizations like the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Paediatric Society have deemed “suboptimal” coverage rates of immunization, and subsequently, a rise in measles outbreaks since 2011.
Given the serious and widespread impact of the anti-vaccination movement, it’s no surprise that legislators and academics alike have begun to ask if and how the law can provide a solution to the rising threat. Two potential solutions include enacting legislation, and the law of extra-contractual obligations. Continue reading “Using the Law to Respond to the Anti-Vaccination Movement”
Contributed by Anita Sengupta
In early 2010, Kathleen Carter, an 89-year-old Canadian woman, decided to die with dignity and travelled to Switzerland, where medically assisted dying is legal. Kathleen suffered from spinal stenosis, a terminal disease, and worried that her death would be “slow, difficult, unpleasant, painful, [and] undignified” (para 12). Although Kathleen was able to die on her own terms, her family believed that she should have been allowed to die at home in Canada, surrounded by her family and friends. This led to the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), February 2015, which ruled that the criminalization of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada was contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely an individual’s right to life, liberty and security of the person. In June 2016, in response to this decision, the government passed Bill C-14 to amend the Criminal Code, thereby allowing physicians in Canada to provide medical assistance in dying if certain conditions are met.
An important condition to providing medical assistance in dying is that the patient must give informed consent. In Carter v. Canada, the trial judge said, “[…] physicians should ensure that patients are properly informed of their diagnosis and prognosis and the range of available options for medical care, including palliative care interventions aimed at reducing pain and avoiding the loss of personal dignity” (para 106). This ruling not only made MAiD legal, but it also prompted the development of legislation focused on improving palliative care, which was recognized as a viable alternative to MAiD. Continue reading “Dying with Dignity: The Growing Importance of Palliative Care in Canada”