EUTHANASIA, “THE RIGHT TO DIE.” Essay, Research Paper

EUTHANASIA, “THE RIGHT TO DIE.”

It is a word of such great significance and puzzlement. Yet do we really know what this word of such intricacy means? It revolves around health, people, religious beliefs and the legal system. Not only is it in Canada but in an immense area of the world. It involves a large part of our Canadian legal system and many issues are raised pertaining to this topic. Finally, we have come to the conclusion that “the right to die” is Euthanasia.

Euthanasia has many sections and aspects to it. There is the aspect of what euthanasia really means. Do we really know what it means? Secondly there are many legal cases that go on in our country that we have not yet realized. These case have affected the lives and attitudes of the ordinary citizen. Last but certainly not least there is the aspect of what the Canadian legal system thinks about the issue of euthanasia. They may have a totally different opinion of this issue. Of all the voices and actions of the people it all comes down to our legal system, the legal system of Canada.

Euthanasia is the act of inducing a gentle, painless death or seeking the help for a good death. It is a mercy killing; the practice of ending a life for the patient who is not curable or can?t tolerate living. This is when they wish to die a painless death. There is no need to live anymore, or at least that is what they think. Euthanasia is the help of a good death. The Canadian Senate defines euthanasia as the deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending the life of another person in order to relieve that persons suffering where that act is the cause of death.

There is a difference between euthanasia and an assisted suicide. In euthanasia, a person kills another person directly. For example, a doctor injects a lethal substance into the person?s body. Assisted suicide is when the person does the act directly to themselves. The doctor writes a prescription for poison, or they hook up a face mask and tubing to a canister of carbon monoxide and then tells someone how to push the lever. Therefore the outcome makes the person die. Euthanasia is considered a “Death with dignity.” This has become a terminology which is known by euthanasia activists. There is nothing solemn and dignified about this act at all. Some euthanasia organizations hand out pamphlets on how to suffocate yourself by using a plastic bag. However a majority of Jack Kevorkian?s “subjects,” as he calls them, have been gassed to death with carbon monoxide and some even have their bodies dumped in vehicles left in parking lots. The act itself can be done in many different ways yet the most well liked form is the gassing of the victim through carbon monoxide poisonous gas. Although some use the method of injecting a lethal substance into the person?s body, they all come down to one conclusion that is they are all a peaceful means of dying. There is no pain and they leave this earth under peaceful circumstances. Suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized, so why is euthanasia? Suicide is a dreadful act that the person does individually. Euthanasia is the complete opposite, its not about an individual act.

It has become clear to the world that the legalizing of euthanasia only allows the use of plastic bags and carbon monoxide to kill vulnerable people. Doctors and physicians have come to the realization that the use of pills would enable a peaceful means of dying and it would stop Jack Kevorkians philosophy that everyone has a right to live and should live. Modern technology keeps people alive who would have died in the past and lengthens their life spans. Many machines are hooked up to the patient yet the law states that the patients surrogates to keep the life support is a decision made by them. There is also a law that “everything be done” to keep a person alive. Most doctors believe that with all these laws euthanasia should not be permitted. Laws against euthanasia are in place to prevent and to protect people from corrupt doctors and others.

Euthanasia is a way of granting mercy by direct killing. This leads to the two components duties of mercy: 1. 1. the duty not to cause further pain or suffering; and

2. the duty to act to end pain or suffering already occurring.

The principle of mercy may also mean to withhold any treatment that extends the life of that person. There is passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the deliberate disconnection of life support equipment, or refraining from any medical procedure that permits the natural death of the person. As for active euthanasia, it is the deliberate action to end the life of a dying patient to avoid further suffering.

The Canadian Human Rights Acts states that the purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an equal opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethic origin, colour, religion, age sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offense for which a pardon has been granted.

Pertaining to the disabled content of this act the Latimer case comes to mind. In Battelford, Saskatchewan on October 24, 1993 a Saskatchewan farmer was convicted of murdering his daughter who was disabled. He explained he was only trying to spare her years of torture. Robert Latimer had a twelve year old daughter named Tracy. She was unable to walk, talk or feed herself and weighed less than forty pounds. She functioned at the level of a three month old and had undergone major surgery on her back, hips and legs. Her parents could not bear seeing her go through any more surgery. It was argued that Latimer killed his daughter after he could not see any other way of ending her suffering.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear Robert Lattimer?s case appeal of his conviction of second-degree murder. Last July, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. Latimer now argues that the confession he gave police should have been inadmissible at his trial. The police had not arrested him yet, and they did not inform him that he had a right to remain silent. Latimer told police that he had placed his daughter in the cab of his truck, then gassed her to death by hooking tubes and pipes to the truck?s exhaust system. Latimer told police that that he had decided to gas her after rejecting earlier thoughts of shooting her in the head and setting her body on fire. A jury convicted Latimer, 44, of second degree murder after five hours of consideration. He was previously convicted in the case three years ago, however a retrial was ordered. Latimer now faces a minimum of ten years imprisonment and will be sentenced soon. Latimer pleaded innocent but admitted killing Tracy out of compassion because of the severe pain she was suffering from worsening cerebral palsy. The jury recommended that Latimer should be eligible for parole after one year?a move that was considered symbolic, considering the law.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian has a long list of assisted suicides, and yet the list is still growing. Austin Bastable who was from South Windsor, Ontario was fifty-three years old when Kevorkian assisted in the death by method of Carbon Monoxide poisoning. Austin Bastable died on 5/6/96. He had severe Multiple Sclerosis. Kevorkian was convicted at this time.

Dr. Maurice Genereux, 49, a Toronto doctor that specialized in patients with HIV and AIDS, had been charged with assisted suicide, a criminal offense in Canada carrying a maximum sentence of fourteen years prison. It is said that Genereux is the first physician ever to be charged with that crime in Canada.

Genereux was charged in the death of his patient, Aaron McGinn, 31, who had been diagnosed with HIV in 1990, but had not developed aids. McGinn died in 4/11/96 after he intentionally overdosed on Seconal which Genereux had prescribed for him a month earlier. The Toronto coroner?s office was alerted to the fact that McGinn?s death was not what it seemed. After an investigation, Genereux was formally charged. Genereux was convicted.

The case of Sue Rodriguez went before the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1993. Ms. Rodriguez was suffering from terminal illness and wanted the court to grant her the request for an assisted suicide. In September 1993 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of Ms. Rodriguez.

Ms. Rodriguez died February, 1994. This debate has not ended. The bishops were with Ms. Rodriguez through this whole process. A Senate committee was formed to review the issues, and the bishops appeared before the committee in October 1994.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada all forms of euthanasia are illegal in Canada, and all other places, except in the Northern Territory of Australia. Acts of euthanasia are either first or second-degree murder in Canada, although they may be and have been prosecuted as offenses other than murder. Canadian criminal laws are based upon intention, not motive. Motive only becomes relevant at the sentencing stage where no mandatory sentence is provided.

The Deputy Chief Coroner of Ontario, Mr. Jim Cairns, took note the way euthanasia is being sentenced. Mr. Cairns refered to this case:

A nurse injected potassium into a patient. The nurse was first charged with second-degree murder. That nurse pleaded guilty to the administration of a harmful substance. She was then given a three-year suspension sentence, and agreed not to be involved with nursing or health care ever again.

In referring to the legal status to euthanasia, the limitation of the existing murder by the Criminal Code of Canada for murder is life imprisonment. However Mr. David Thomas, a crown attorney from Timmins, Ontario, told the Senate committee: “In the course of my case, it became apparent that euthanasia goes on routinely across Canada, both passive and active. Even as we are speaking someone is probably being euthanized, and most often it goes unreported and undetected.”

The Senate Committee of Canada oppose voluntary euthanasia and they insist that it remains in our Criminal Code. They believe that what is being done for such an act are inappropriate and there is too much compassion and sympathy towards these people. The law of Canada now treats voluntary euthanasia like nonvoluntary euthanasia. Nonvoluntary euthanasia is first degree murder due to the fact that the death was deliberate and planned. The Senate believes that the mandatory sentence of twenty-five years is too harsh and a less severe punishment should be authorized. As for nonvoluntary euthanasia the Senate committee believes that this should remain a criminal offence and parliament should determine the correct penalty. The majority recommends that voluntary euthanasia remains a criminal offence. The Criminal Code should be amended to allow for a less severe penalty.

In conclusion to this topic, euthanasia is and may always remain a criminal offence. The cases that reflect euthanasia and what the Legal System of Canada think about this issue all tie into one question, do people really have the right to die?