I am writing to you today with both the interests of the public, and my own interests, on the topic of Euthanasia becoming legalized in British Columbia. In a 2013 poll conducted by Life Canada the findings were that in British Columbia 63% of Canadians believed that Assisted Suicide be brought into place, and 55% believed that Euthanasia should take action, although some hesitated because of the numbers of non-consensual Euthanasia deaths in Belgium. Having Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide legalized would not only be able to help the terminally ill and physically disabled decide how they wish for their life to end, but the legalization would also save a lot of time, money, and resources in hospitals and palliative care facilities. Although some laws such as section 241 of the Criminal Code would need to be reviewed, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could potentially end some people’s suffering, and save money and resources for the province. My first argument is related to end of life decisions and life support. How is it that your family has the right to make an end of life decision when the subject is unable to, while they are unable to make their own decision when they are fully capable. For example, if someone were to get into an accident or become ill to the point of needing life support, it is the family’s decision on if and when to, “pull the plug” on their family member. This is seen as completely acceptable in the public’s eyes while in reality the patient did not give consent or the decision themselves. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide would allow the patient themselves decide whether or not they wish to die early or at what point they would wish to receive a life ending substance. This would be completely on the ... ... middle of paper ... ...ed Suicide could potentially free up more space in hospitals and give others the chance to receive better care earlier on in their disease, giving them a chance to recover. The money saved could also be used to fund lifesaving research to one day be able to cure a terminal disease. As shown above, patient morality and end of life care, is a huge part of the course of action when faced with a terminal, or physically disabling disease. Many patients wish not to experience the worst of the disease at all, and Euthanasia and assisted suicide would give them the chance to end their life as they choose, and pain free. It is my hope that you understand my opinion on the topic, and where I stand on the issue. The general public and I hope to see Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide be brought into legislation in British Columbia. Thank you for taking the time to see my standpoint
The case of Rodriguez v. BC is one that recently has been revisited and become more relevant today. The fight to legalize assisted suicide began with Sue Rodriguez when she tried to gain the right to end her life via physician assisted suicide in 1993. This case brought to light not only subsection 241(b) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits assisted suicide. This is also to do with the principle of fundamental justice based on the idea that assisted suicide is wrong on both moral and legal planes and if legalized, could potentially lead to wrongdoings . The reason this case is worth analyzing would be its current prevalence today. For the past 21 years, assisted suicide has been illegal, but recently, it has been decided that a new law will be passed stating that it is legal for Canadians to participate in physician assisted suicide. For this reason, it would be interesting to reexamine exactly why the court reached the decision it did for Sue Rodriguez when 21 years later the decision would have ruled in her favour.
In the United States, euthanasia should be legalized. In the year of 1992, Chris Docker wrote about an elderly woman going through the last painful stages of her life. Docker shared that “Mrs. Boyes' was so ill that she "screamed like a dog" if anyone touched her… when she repeatedly requested to die, Dr. Cox finally gave her an injection of potassium chloride, bestowing on her the boon of a peaceful death so many of us feel we are entitled to” (Docker). This unfortunate situation is presented to many doctors across the US. With euthanasia currently being illegal, they cannot provide proper care for their patients. Euthanasia can spare many people of their undesirable agony they face close to their passing. Too many people are suffering from a terminal illness and wanting to be put out of their misery; therefore, euthanasia should be made legal and enforced nationwide.
This topic usually not a friendly dinner conversation (Suicide, Euthanasia, and Assisted Suicide). Assisted suicide is continued to be a debatable topic among Americans today. Whether death is a legal right or something that people should let nature take care of is still being decided. Although the topic of assisted suicide is not completely illegal in the United States, four states have legalized it in the past years. The states that are legalized are Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington (Euthanasia Should be Legalized). Euthanasia can help terminally ill patients of sound and mind end their suffering and expensive medical bills. Many individuals think it is their right as a human to control their destiny (Assisted Suicide). Ending one’s life may also be hard for family and friends to accept as well as being against many peoples beliefs. Every person’s life is sacred no matter the defects or faults, and they should be treated as so.
In British Columbia, euthanasia is illegal as it is unconstitutional and violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Duffy, 2015). Muckart, Gopalan, Hardcastle, and Hodgson (2014) define euthanasia as the conduct that brings about an easy and painless death for persons suffering from an incurable or painful disease. I maintain that the law should regulate euthanasia as it goes against the Charter and the judicial system should have the power to determine issues relating the euthanasia as legality is under question. I will rely heavily on the narratives from The Common Place of Law supported by secondary sources (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). I will consider each of the possible alternatives of legal consciousness to develop
Margaret Somerville, who has authored, edited, and co-edited a number of books and newspaper articles opposing the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and who also is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University, Montreal, wrote the internet article titled “Against Euthanasia.” In the article Somerville blatantly states that any type of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is completely and totally wrong under all circumstances. She offers the two major reasons why she considers the practice of euthanasia to be entirely immoral and unacceptable. The first main reason that is given is, “that it is wrong for one human to intentionally kill another, except in self-defense.”The second key reason she provides is, “that the harms and risks of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide far outweigh any benefits” . Somerville believes that euthanasia proponents base their arguments on emotions rather than on logic and use dramatic and compelling stories to make their points. She later goes on to say, “To legalize euthanasia would fundamentally change the way we understand ourselves, human life and its meaning." It is also stated that if euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are made legal then abuse and over use are inevitable and unstoppable. Another point made in the article is that if doctors and nurses are allowed to assist in the deaths of their patients that the trustworthiness of doctors would be skewed and patients would live in fear of going to the hospital and receiving care for whatever illness, disease, or problem they may have (Somerville). She brings her article to a close by stressing...
The topic of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic across North America. Although both supporters and critics have expressed very different and logical views on the matter, competent terminal patients should be given the right to decide when they want to end their overall suffering. Euthanasia in Canada distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia. Active, is the act of intentionally killing a person to relieve pain. While withholding or taking away life-preserving procedures such as water and food, is passive. Over the last few years, Canada, more specifically Ontario has gained permission by provincial courts to end their life ahead of the federal government 's new law. In 2015, The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada
Who owns your life? In the case of Canadians, the choice to die is not in your hands…unless you decide to break the law. Sue Rodriguez, 42, from British Columbia, fought the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the prohibition against Euthanasia. She lost to a vote of five to four. Sue later took her life with the help of an anonymous doctor. Ironically, Canada was founded upon the principles of rights, freedoms, and dignity. Why do our rights end when faced with Euthanasia? Does freedom from suffering not apply? How does artificially prolonging life respect human dignity? The act of Euthanasia poses many questions because there is an element of control. The following paper will examine why the control should be in the hands of the individual: Fundamentally, controlling one’s life should be an independent choice; additionally, the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia; moreover, many arguments against euthanasia are invalid.
As individuals with have the freedom to make autonomous decisions regarding our lives, our health, and the quality of life our life. I will begin by defining the types of active euthanasia. Next I present the premises for my argument, followed by possible criticisms for each premise. Lastly, I will address a counterargument to my argument and offer a reply. The goal of this paper is to make a compelling argument based on the principle of autonomy as to why voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in Canada.
... Association. 1998. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.” Canadian Medical Association Board of Directors. Retrieved from http://www.cma.ca/index.php/ci_id/3214/la_id/1.htm on October 16th, 2010.
to over turn the law. Also Kevin Andrews was strongly not in favour and with
Thus, despite the arguments against euthanasia, patients’ lives should not be deprived of well-being, comfort or dignity. “In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected” (Policy Options, 2013). A lot of the time, patients with terminal illnesses are thought of as ‘better off dead’ or ‘not the person they used to be’. This is all the more the reason why euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The government should relax current laws and allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide if need be and are willing. If people suffering with terminal illnesses want to die peacefully and not endure painful procedures or live off machines whilst also helping society out money wise, the option should be available.
“The most good is done by allowing people to carry out their own affairs with as little intrusion by government as possible” (Gittelman 372). Dying is a part of life and since it is your body you should have complete and full control over it. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be available for patients because they have the right to choses there “final exit”(Manning 26). Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27). They should be permitted the opportunity to die with a sense of pride and dignity, not shame, pain and suffrage. To make anyone live longer against their will and is simply immoral. By denying patient the option of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide the government is vi...
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because
Euthanasia, a sensitive and delicate subject. The termination of someone who is very sick to relieve them of the suffering of their disease is a great moral dilemma. The debate on the ethics of Euthanasia can incite strong emotions on both sides of the argument, those who support the idea and those who oppose the idea with great dislike. I happen to believe that euthanasia or assisted suicide is not as morally wrong as some people make it out to be. Does an individual on his deathbed not have the right to die with dignity and no pain? Is putting that individual out if his misery not morally right? Is trying to stop ones suffering not morally wrong?