Draft

Euthanasia - Should It be Legalized?

Euthanasia is a term that refers to putting a human being out of his/her suffering by ending his/her life. A doctor may choose to abide by the special wishes of the patient and immediate family and facilitate measure that would bring about a peaceful and painless end to that particular person’s life. The concept of Euthanasia is, more often than not, an indelible social stigma. From the deceleration of progress in the field of palliatives (a key goal of medical professions) to the decaying of doctor-patient relationships, it invariably has negative connotations [Ishimaru 1]. However, many view the practice of freeing an individual from excruciating pain, when every other conceivable measure to alleviate it has been tried and exhausted, as noble and undeniably humane. Advocates of euthanasia assert that it is a viable solution in hopeless situations where pain reaches unbelievable and intolerable levels and also point out that in the end, a patient should have absolute control over his/her body [Ishimaru 1]. It is a topic that has stoked much debate (one being on whether it should be legalized in Canada) and it is imperative to delve further into the matter and explore the myriad complexities that surround it and which must be overcome before it gains widespread acceptance.

At the moment, the Criminal Code of Canada completely prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide [Ryan 1999]. Central to the discussion is whether euthanasia should be considered the equivalent of murder. Murder can be simply defined as when an individual, or group of individuals, intentionally put an end to someone’s life for personal reasons or to achieve a certain outcome. It is carried out in a premeditated fashion with malice on the part of the perpetrator/s. Personal motive plays a large part and this action results in varying degrees of punishment depending on the circumstances and other related factors. Should euthanasia thus be equated with murder? Let us look at a number of reasons which would tend to suggest that it should be, in the context of the prime cause behind murder – personal/group gain and favourable outcome for a person or certain group of people. People suffering from debilitating illnesses would face increased costs for the specialized care and medicines needed to help them survive. They may turn out to be burdensome to sustain in the long-term for close family members and a major source of stress for them who may take their own actions under the pretence of ‘euthanasia’. Keeping terminal patients alive would also inevitably drive up medical costs, in the process becoming an additional drain on taxpayers. Clearly, euthanizing such patients would seem to benefit many parties who may resort to it when the strains become excessive.

The opposing view would be that people who are ill will have access to a system that would enable them to end their lives without undergoing severe pain. Fewer resources, taken from taxpayers, would be tied up in sustaining terminal patients and go towards funding other sectors such as education and social welfare. Finally, family members will be able to have closure with their loved one and witness them depart in a thoroughly supervised manner within the confines of an authorized medical institution. There is also the fact that euthanasia in such a scenario would not involve malice of any sort and therefore, euthanasia cannot be considered murder. Perhaps the best way to make the distinction between euthanasia and murder is to contrast the thoughts that come to a person’s mind when thinking of the two notions. The former would consist of terminal illness, willingness to die, family consent, assistance in ending one’s life, mutual agreement (between the patient and the doctor) and painless death. The latter would encompass guilt, impulsive action, planning beforehand, punishment, incentive and a violent end. It need not be pointed that there is no family consent or mutual agreement involved when a murder is carried out. Pain acts as the catalyst which pushed the person to ending his/her own life, and for that the assistance of a doctor is required.

It is suggested by many that euthanasia is a form of suicide, with it being often construed as the more well-known ‘doctor-assisted suicide’. It is a sensitive topic for the medical establishment as well. A person, wishing to prematurely end his/her life, may not be able to face the prospect of more drastic measures and could turn to a doctor to seek an easier (painless) way out. When one commits suicide, he/she can clearly not be punished for ending his/her own life. However, if someone helps another person end their life, they face the likelihood of being charged with murder. It is probably this fact that deters more doctors from engaging in ‘mercy-killing’, who would not be so were this legal measure not in place. There is no provision for euthanasia as a special category of murder based on a motive of compassion [Ryan 1999]. On the other hand, assisted suicide is distinguished from murder but is nevertheless classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment [Ryan 1999].

Some naysayers may also highlight a less-than-positive effect of legalizing euthanasia – that it may be used to systematically wipe out the older generation, or those deemed by society as ‘undesirables’. The potential for abuse is high should legislation be passed favouring euthanasia. The cost of medical treatment could force the abandonment and elimination of certain patients, especially the elderly and the poor who have difficulty paying expensive hospital bills [Ishimaru 1]. One doesn’t have to look too far into history to know that this was actually carried in Nazi Germany, where not only the old but also the mentally and physically disabled were euthanized by the hundreds of thousands. The elderly are often discriminated against and mistreated. They are viewed as unproductive and prolonged life spans, as a result of great scientific advances of the twentieth century, siphon off the resources of the state. Their senses are somewhat impaired and it would not take much to subdue them ‘peacefully’.

At this juncture, it would be to the reader’s benefit to mention some notable cases in Canada involving euthanasia. In British Columbia, an inquest was held into the death of a ten-year-old girl with Rett syndrome, a rare neurological disorder that, among other symptoms, can cause severe eating disorders. At the time of her death, Katie Lynn Baker reportedly weighed only twenty two pounds, was severely disabled and could not speak, being virtually non-communicative to all except her closest caregivers. According to the coroner’s report, when hospitalization became the only way to save Katie, her mother had sought “the child’s wishes respecting being ‘hooked-up’ or force fed, which the mother interpreted as being in the negative.” To isolate Katie from the possibility of non-consensual treatment, she was moved by her mother from the family home to a new location, where she died a few days later. The jury found that death had been caused by “severe malnutrition” as a result of “inadequate nutritional intake over a period of time caused directly or indirectly by the actions of other persons.” The jury classified the death as “homicide”; however, the presiding coroner noted that “the jury’s ruling of death by homicide precludes any assumption of culpability on the part of any person or agency. In the Coroner’s Inquest, the term is neutral and does not imply fault or blame.”

On May 6th, 1997, in Halifax, Dr. Nancy Morrison was arrested on a charge of first‑degree murder in the death of a terminally ill cancer patient. Mr. Mills had cancer of the esophagus, which required removing the esophagus and repairing the gap by repositioning the stomach. All possible treatment methods were unsuccessful. By November 9th, 1996, there was no hope of recovery. The patient’s family was consulted and, consistent with normal and usual procedures in such circumstances, it was agreed by all those present that active life support would be discontinued. When Mr. Mills was taken off the ventilator, pain control drugs were administered and increased several times. Mr. Mills remained in substantial distress and pain, gasping for air. One expert witness testified that the level of drugs given to Mr. Mills was in the lethal range and outside of his experience. With Mr. Mills in continuing distress, Dr. Morrison administered nitroglycerine followed by potassium chloride by syringe. Potassium chloride, administered as it was to Mr. Mills, will stop the heart.

The emotional – and even practical – dimension of this issue can best be summed up by the case of Sue Rodriguez. In 1992 she was suffering from the terminal illness ALS. Foreseeing that she would eventually be unable to commit suicide without assistance, she petitioned the court to overturn section 241(b) of the Criminal Code which prohibits suicide [Ryan]. Through the extensive media coverage of her case, Ms. Rodriguez posed the following moral question to Canadian society: "If I cannot give consent to my own death, then whose body is this? Who owns my life?" To the largely sympathetic media, the answer seemed obvious and undeserving of debate. Those who speak for the decriminalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide argue that an individual has autonomy over his/her body and that should include the right to end one’s own life [Ishimaru 1]. Despite the fact that the opposition to euthanasia is still strong, it would seem that support for it is gaining momentum. According to Battin and Lipman, a survey published in 1992 revealed that 64% of Americans believed that the law should provide sufficient leeway for physicians to respond to a patient’s request for aid in dying in the event of a terminal illness [Ishimaru 1]. In 1991, 46% of the physicians in Alberta were mailed a questionnaire regarding euthanasia. 44% of the respondents believed that euthanasia should be practiced in certain conditions. In all, 28% of physicians stated that they would practice active euthanasia if it was legalized but 51% said that they would not. However, over half the respondents (51%) felt that the law should be changed to permit patients to request active euthanasia.

This whole idea about euthanizing is a morally gray topic and is still a taboo in the society that we live in. What is talked about in the previous cases only laments the fact that it is still not acceptable in the world that we live in today. In actuality though, the process of euthanizing seems humane when certain necessary and severe condition arises. What we, as a group, feel is that making euthanasia legal would be a big step forward for the people that are in need of such measures. Of course, making such a controversial issue legal would raise eyebrows everywhere and present the wrong kind of idea to the people who are not severely in need of euthanizing. That is the moral and social issue that stigmatizes the legalizing of euthanasia. But in all honesty, barring the negativity that comes with the practice of euthanizing, if it were to be made legal, that would enable the people who are in dire need of it because of their state then it would be a welcoming addition for them and their family. Our team feels that the positives that would come with the legalising of such measures would greatly outweigh the negatives. We believe that it would help not only the ailing suffering from terminal illnesses or others barely alive due to diseases to be laid to rest peacefully, but also help put their supporting family members at mental ease. In order to get our message across, the communication strategies that we choose to use included a mixture of old-school methods mixed with new. In this day and age, the social media tools are used commonly to get a message across. Tools such as Facebook and Twitter are used to promote and market various products, promotions, beliefs or even values. We belief that promoting our idea of legalising euthanasia using a Facebook page would cater to the people in our age region, as they make up of the largest demographic using networking websites such as these. We also plan on making posters that convey our message by posting them in and around various locations on the campus. Another method we plan to use to transmit the message to the younger generation is by making appearances at schools and talking about the issues regarding euthanasia and the society. We believe that getting the message across to a younger generation would open their outlook about the subject matter and change their perception in getting the right idea about euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a serious matter regarding to those who would actually benefit from it and it is of utmost importance for the younger generation to know about it so that in the future they can change the system. It would be highly beneficial if legalized, for those in actual need of this measure as it helps them in numerous ways. Regardless of the fact that it is still a social stigma and it incorporates not only social beliefs but religious ones too, if those things could be looked past then a lot of families would benefit from this.

Ishimaru source-- [] Ryan source-- []