More often than not, when a case is presented in front of a judge, jury or anybody within the judicial system, there is more to be analyzed than just the facts themselves. When reviewing a case, there’s usually more to be considered than what’s presented before you. This paper will strive to provide not only an in-depth analysis of the decisions of both the minority and majority judges in the case of Starson v. Swayze, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722, but to dissect and even further analyze how the legal theory of legal liberalism can be applied to cases such as this.
Since 1985, Professor Starson has been repeatedly admitted to numerous mental health institutions across the United States and Canada. During his stays, he has been continually diagnosed with bipolar disorder - an affective disorder marked by alternating periods of euphoria and depression*. His most recent admission to the hospital came about after he was found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats, for which the Ontario Review Board ordered his detention for 12 months . While Starson was kept in detention, his physicians proposed treatment for his disorder that included neuroleptic medication, mood stabilizers, anti-anxiety medication, and anti-parkinsonian medication. Although Starson had taken similar medication for his disorder in the past, he refused the treatment on this occasion and would only accept treatment in the form of psychoanalysis. Starson made claims that the medication not only “dulled his mind and diminished his creativity” but was also persistent in the fact that “no benefits exist for medication” . As Starson was an exceptionally gifted physicist, a loss of creativity would therefore hinder his ability to continue on in his field of work. However, under guidelines set in the Health Care Consent Act, physicians have the authority to impose treatment on an individual if they find that the patient fulfills both the necessary criteria involved in this process. In assessing the...