Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Law


Length: 1865 words (5.3 double-spaced pages)
Rating: Excellent
Open Document
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Text Preview

More ↓

Continue reading...

Open Document



Euthanasia and the Law

 

      A severely handicapped or terminally ill person should have the right to

choose to live or die.  The right to live; the right to choose to live or die

should not only be a right allocated for bodied individuals of sound mind but

for all human beings.  Euthanasia is a controversial issue which encompasses the

morals, values and beliefs of our society.

 

      Euthanasia, literally defined means "good death".  There are two types

of euthanasia, active and passive.  Active euthanasia is the intentional killing

of a person by medical personnel either by a lethal injection or by denying

ordinary means of survival.  The act of euthanasia called "passive euthanasia",

is committed by denying or withholding ordinary medical care to a patient.

 

      Currently, under Canadian law euthanasia is prohibited. In Holland

euthanasia has been accepted, in principle for terminally- ill patients, on

request.  It comes to be seen as practice for those whose "quality of life" is

judged by themselves as worthless.  Even though euthanasia is not yet legal in

Holland, it is legally tolerated.  Doctors are rarely prosecuted and even more

rarely convicted.  If euthanasia were to be decriminalized in Canada certain

restrictions would have to be put into place, to ensure that a patient's rights

are not infringed upon.  A living will should be made when the patient is of

lucid mind.  Also, a council should be selected and outlined in the living will.

The council should be chosen by the patient, when the patient is of sound mind

and is able to make decisions.  The council might consist of the patient's

family, doctor or any other he or she feels have the same view or perception of

life.

 

      Presently in Canada a living will is not a legally binding document.  A

living will is a document prepared and sighed in advance of illness, in which a

person may specify which treatment or care is to be withheld or withdrawn from

him or her in certain situations.  It is extremely general, trying to cover a

wide range of accidents or illnesses and possible treatments.  Living wills are

created to protect the individual who is unable to participate in decisions

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and the Law." 123HelpMe.com. 25 Mar 2017
    <http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=16827>.

Related Searches





regarding their medical care.  In Canada, even with a living will in many cases

any decisions on the removal of medical care must be passed through the court

system.  This system must be amended.  The living will should be made a legally

binding document.  In the United States, living wills have become legally

binding documents, in most states.  The recognition of the living will as a

legally binding document is one of the first necessary step required in the

legalization of euthanasia ant the recognition of ones right to their own life.

 

      Every person has the right to choose to live or die.  This statement is

a reality for most individuals, but for many terminally ill or permanently

disabled patients this right cannot be exercised.  Many patients lose control of

the function of their arms and or legs and become completed dependent.  The

question then becomes, "When does ones quality of life reach such a low level

that life then becomes not worth living?".  A person, at any time, should be

able to make this decision.  Under the existing law Canadians are not granted

this right, the right to their own life.  An example of the absence of the

"right to die", can be seen through the examination of a case from 1990.  A

woman named Michelle Frenette wanted to be disconnected from the respirator

which was keeping her alive.  Her doctors refused to disconnect her from the

respirator without a court order.  Michelle's family could not afford to go to

court, and legal aid does not provide assistance in such cases.  So, Michelle

lay there, for two years until her eventual death.  She should have been able to

end her life, without having to obtain a court order, when she felt that her

quality of life had been reduced to such a level that it was no longer worth

living.  In this particular case the law prevented and discriminated against

Michelle and her inherent right to freedom of choice.

 

      When a person decides whether euthanasia is an option for them, in their

state of illness, they must consider their quality of life.  As a result of

their illness, has the quality of their life been reduced to such an extent that

their lives are no longer worth living?  Euthanasia should be allowed to be

performed in these such cases.  An example can be seen through the examination

of the sue Rodriguez case.  Sue Rodriguez was suffering from a fatal

neurological illness which was gradually robbing her of muscle control.

Rodriguez wanted to, "...be able to live as long as possible and to have the

option, of suicide, at a time I feel I do not want to experience any more

discomfort."  In other words she wanted to be in control of her life and her

death, a right that all people should be granted.  Rodriguez went to the courts

so that she could obtain permission to exercise her right.  After several

appeals and the final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, Rodriguez was not

granted the right to die.  Finally, on February 12, 1994, Rodriguez exercised

her right to die, even though it was illegal.  Rodriguez assisted by an unknown

doctor and witnessed by New Democrat MP, Svend Robinson was assisted in her

suicide in her home in Victoria.  All people should be granted the right to die

by the law.  Not having the right, one's freedom of choice is infringed upon and

in some cases denied.

 

      A person should have the right to die, but what if they are never fully

competent to be able to form such a decision?  Who has the right to say when, by

whom or by what means this should be done?  An example of this situation is

evident in the Robert Latimer case.  In this situation Tracy Latimer, Robert's

daughter, had been suffering from cerebral palsy since she was born.  Tracy

would never learn to walk, talk or develop mentally, beyond the level of a new

born child.  Throughout Tracy's twelve years of life she experienced almost

nothing but pain.  Seizures were nearly continuous until an anticonvulsant drug

reduced them to about five seizures a day.  At the age of nine she had an

operation on her legs and feet which left her in a body cast, for six weeks.  At

the age of eleven her spinal cord began to cram her organs.  Another operation

was performed during which two stainless steel rods were inserted and attached

to the vertebrae.  For the pain these operations she could take nothing stronger

than Tylenol.  Finally in October of 1993, Tracy's father, Robert, could not

stand to see her suffer any longer.  In an act of mercy he put Tracy into the

family's truck and hooked the exhaust system of the truck up to a tube so that

the exhaust would enter the cab of the truck.  Tracy died from carbon monoxide

poisoning.  Robert claimed his act was one of compassion.  Robert was tried and

sentenced for second degree murder.  The courts' decision is currently under

appeal.  It can be understood that Robert was under great stress and pain to

have to witness some one suffer for so many years.  Did he have the right to

decide Tracy's fate when she did not have the capacities to communicate her

wishes?  Was it Robert's duty or right to end her suffering?

 

      Does a doctor have the right to help his or her patients commit suicide?

Why should a doctor or nurse be penalized for assisting people to exercise their

recognized right to take their own lives?  Most people shudder at the stories

about incurably ill people leading a dragged-out vegetative existence in

hospital beds, kept alive only by drugs, intravenous tubes, and respirators.  It

is felt by some that they do not want to become "vegetables", they would like to

die with dignity.  Dying with dignity means that the patient's intellectual

identity is preserved even in the process of dying.  In Canada there is a Dying

with Dignity group which concentrates on promoting living wills and lobbying the

medical profession for support.

 

      The act of mercy killing can be compared to that of active euthanasia.

An example of mercy killing takes place every day without much thought if it is

right or wrong.  Family pets such as dogs and cats are, "put down", when the

owner sees that the animal is in constant pain due to illness, most people feel

that it is the humane thing to do.  This type of "humane" treatment for animals

has been taking place for years.  It can not be understood that society would

let a human life suffer for years.  Forcing someone who no longer wants to live,

to live a life full of pain and misery.  The humane response to this would be

choose euthanasia, giving freedom to the individual from their pain and

unhappiness.

 

      Under our existing Canadian legislation the following hypothetical

example would leave the medical community and our society in a legal and ethical

bind.  Mr. Brown is a transient, who is presently living on the street and in

and out of the Salvation army in downtown Ottawa.  Mr. brown has no traceable

family, and no proof of his identity.  He has never been declared incompetent in

area's of either personal property and personal care.  He is hit by a car

downtown in the market, he is currently in the Civic Hospital's intensive care

unit.  He is hooked up to, and dependant on life support systems since, his

organs no longer function independently.  Brain scans continued to show brain

activity, therefore he cannot be deemed legally dead.  He has no living will, no

person deemed power of attorney, no family and is unable to make the decision

himself.  According to the law his doctors are unable to detach his life support

systems.  When can it be deemed legal for Mr. Brown to be detached from the life

support system?  If he were to be disconnected, who would make his decision?  As

the law presently states no one has the legal right to disconnect him, to let

nature take its course.  Will he be hooked up to life support indefinitely?

What is the cost? Is this burden worthwhile for society?  Something must be done

to solve this problem.

 

      A severely handicapped or terminally ill person should have the right to

choose to live or die.  The "right to life", is one that should be a fundamental

right of all individuals.  When the time comes that an individual feels that

their pain and suffering has become so extreme that their quality of life has

been reduced to such a level that life is no longer worth living.  Canadian laws

presently do not grant individuals these rights.  The laws that restrict these

rights must changed to all Canadians with the ultimate freedom of choice the

right to die.


Return to 123HelpMe.com