The American Dream Essay, Research Paper

Euthanasia

Introduction

Over the past couple of decades, changes in medical technology have allowed physicians to prolong an individual’s life than ever before. Individuals are now able to live a longer and healthier life with the help of respirators and other medical machines. We may consider that living longer maybe be beneficial to us, but people fear of having their lives dependent upon machines, being unconscious, or in terrible pain, and these people wouldn’t want to end their lives this way. Many people are attempting to control how and when they die. Which has lead to the on going debate about euthanasia. Trying to determine who and when euthanasia should be carried out or whether or not it should be legalized? Patients which are suffering usually feel that their own quality of life is affected, they have lost hope in themselves and most important they have lost their own will to live, and would rather experience a peaceful death instead of living life in pain and suffer. Whatever the reason Canadians and all other people around the world are worried about how they will die, and the debate concerning euthanasia has become a national issue. Throughout this essay you will get a well understanding of the what euthanasia really is, I will mention the current debates and views, how the law relates to this issue and lastly I will tell you the story about Sue Rodriguez.

Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy”. But if we want to learn more about the debate, there is lots more to understand than this definition may indicate. Understanding the different forms of euthanasia is important for us to know so we can grasp all of the vital key points and learn why this topic inspires such emotion towards people around the world.

When people refer to “euthanasia” they maybe be discussing passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, and or assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia occurs when a terminally ill person is removed from medical treatment and is left to die on their own. The most common form of passive euthanasia is when a physician of a family member decides to remove the respirator so that the patient dies a quick and calm death. In active euthanasia, a family member or a physician takes the life of an ill patient. For example, if a family member or physician gave the patient a lethal injection. The patient dies from the injection not from the disease or injury. Finally, assisted suicide occurs when someone usually a physician or family member or friend fulfills a person’s request for help in dying. This usually involves an ill patient who wishes to die, but can’t do the act alone, so they use the assistance of a family member of physician to give a lethal injection or help arrange some other means of suicide.

Frequently people argue the pros and cons of euthanasia because of the concern of the manner in which they will die. People want to die peacefully, but advances in technology have made it harder to do so. The main fear expressed by many people that doctors will not be able to provide the means to control their pain if they come seriously ill. I’m sure that many patients would much rather take the approach of active euthanasia, then any other approach of dieing, since it is the most peaceful way of ending your life. Yet pain is not the only fear. Many people fear of getting a disease and having to suffer in the future, having their family members or siblings taking care of them such as bathing and feeding and they wouldn’t want to end their life in a nursing home. Another factor that could arise would be the expensive medical costs in the future, which families could be affected by. So family members might try and encourage this approach, because they will know it will be very costly and the family might not be able to afford the future payments. As you can see these patients have many things to fear from and they are just trying to figure out the best means possible in ending a peaceful death, so they don’t have to worry about future problems which may arise from their illness.

One of the main questions that s on people’s mind is trying to determine “whose life is it anyways”? People who support the “right to die” issue think they should have the power to decide whether they live or not, no matter what other people think or believe. They point to certain individual rights that are protected by the U.S Constitution such as the right to privacy or liberty, which they feel, mean citizens can refuse medical care. People who oppose the right to die concept believe in the “sancity of life”. They argue that all human beings, no matter what their quality of life, they should never be withdrawn from medical treatment. Also that everyone’s life is totally his own, that individuals belong to the human community. To preserve this community, they say the country should preserve human life which protects our human rights. I don t really agree with this right. People aren’t prisoners and they shouldn’t all be treated as if they have no say in the matter, their lives shouldn’t be based upon a community relationship since people have different illnesses and diseases which they suffer greatly from, I think their the ones who know what is best for themselves, and their well being and should be given the right to do whatever they think is right.

Another problem which usually occurs when a patient is unconscious, and can’t decide whether euthanasia can be carried out. Usually the family thinks they have the say on behalf of the patient since they are closest to that individual. Even though a patient is unconscious I think a family member shouldn’t have any say, since it’s not their life that they are dealing with. Maybe the patient wanted to stay alive, and thought they still might have a chance at life and the family would have no way in determining that, so all decisions should be towards the patients point of view.

The Criminal Code of Canada has a penalty of up to fourteen years for anyone assisting another in committing suicide. This is, as it stands, no degree of predictability for patients or physicians in how the courts will rule on the general rules established in the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code of Canada reads: (Martin’s Annual Criminal Code, 1994)

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

(3) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.

224. Where a person, by act or omission, does anything that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding the death of that human being might have been prevented by restoring to proper means.

In addition there is no defense to point to that fact that a person has requested to be killed. The Law Reform Commission Working paper of 1982 states (p37) “No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted upon him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibilities of any person by whom death may be inflicted upon the person by whom consent is given,” if a person cause the death of another, the consent of the deceased does not provide the person who cause the death a defense to criminal responsibility.

Lastly, I would like to mention the story about Sue Rodriguez who was a 42-year-old woman terminally ill with Lou Gehrig’s disease. This disease causes a difficulty for people to swallow, speak, walk, or simply to move. Death usually occurs by choking or losing the ability to breathe. It came to a point in her life where she didn t want to live no more, and she wanted to commit suicide, without the assistance of a physician. But Section 241 of the Criminal Code makes it an offense for a person to aid or abet anyone to commit suicide. Rodriguez argued that her right under section 7, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated.

According to Section 7 of the Charter provides:

Everyone has he right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

This provides us with an understanding that we have a right to life and we should be able to decide what to do with out lives and we can determine what’s best for ourselves and have no one try and stop and interfere with our decisions.

Rodriguez argued that she has the right to live her remaining life with the dignity of a human person, that she should be able to control what happens to her body when living and not have government interfere with her decision making concerning the terminally ill stages of her life. This in fact I think is true and all of us Canadians should be guaranteed this right, since it is our own life and we would know what’s best for ourselves. The government doesn’t understand the amount of pain and suffer people go through daily and would rather like to just end their lives, so they no longer have to live their lives in this type of state. But other’s may argue that euthanasia is another form of murder and no one should have the right to end their own lives, and a patient shouldn t be given the opportunity to decide since they could be pressured or stressed by family members and might not have a proper state of mind. People opposing this matter could also say that since these patients are terminally ill, they shouldn’t be aloud to make any choices since their bodies aren’t acting normally and they aren’t able to make decisions properly and correctly and the decision’s should be left upon family members instead.

In conclusion, the infringement of Charter section 7 by section 241 has not been shown to be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

Like Canadians, the Dutch have been debating of legalizing euthanasia since the 1970’s. For decades, the Dutch legalized euthanasia and physicians who performed euthanasia were not prosecuted if they followed strict guidelines. Dutch doctors were performing euthanasia at an alarming rate up to 20,000 cases a year. But in Canada the debate will continue whether or not it should be legalized or not, and I’m sure there will be many other causes regarding this matter in the future.

In conclusion, I would like to say that euthanasia will continue to be a serious issue in Canada and around the world, trying to decide whether or not it is right. I personally think that we know our bodies best, and how we are feeling, which should give us the right to decide what’s best for ourselves. Everyone of us will pass away eventually but we don’t know when or how and that’s why to some people euthanasia may be the best option available for those with serious illnesses. Maybe one of these days our society may carry out euthanasia the same way they do in the Netherlands ? But we all have to realize that there is a time for living and we should try to make the best out of it and there is a time for death and we all have to accept it because that s the way life is.