Final+Assignment


 * Should Euthanasia Be Legalized?**

Euthanasia is a term that refers to putting a human being out of his or her suffering by ending his or 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 or her body (Ishimaru 1). It is a topic that has garnered much debate regarding its legal status 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). 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 perpetrators. Personal motive plays a large part and this action results in varying degrees of punishment depending on the circumstances and other related factors. In light of this understanding of murder, the question is: should euthanasia be equated with this crime?

The financial benefits of euthanasia might suggest that the relationship between these acts is an analogous one. For example, people suffering from debilitating illnesses would face increased costs for the specialized care and medicines needed to help them survive. Thus, long-term care may become burdensome for close family members, as well as a major source of stress, and perhaps these caretakers may resort to euthanasia for personal relief or they may even use the pretence of euthanasia for personal gain, such as inheritance. This argument may be supplemented with the fear of oppositional parties, particularly Catholic ones, that patients or their family members use euthanasia to end a life that, under religious tradition, God ought to maintain control over; that is, people should die naturally at His will and we shouldn’t try to “play God.”

Despite the immense influence that this religious argument exerts over the masses, it should not be considered relevant in the secular field of law-making. At the same time, the argument regarding personal gain is flawed because legal euthanasia would occur based on the discretion of a practising physician and would therefore be justified for the patient whether the family members benefit or not. Therefore, the distinction between murder and euthanasia lies in the expert opinion of a doctor and the desire of a terminal patient to die painlessly, which would be involved in the legalization of the latter

Ultimately, patients would have access to a system that would enable them to end their lives without undergoing severe pain. Fewer monetary resources would be tied up in sustaining terminal patients and could then go toward funding other sectors such as education, social welfare, and the like. 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. Euthanasia in such a scenario would not involve malice of any sort, and therefore, euthanasia cannot be considered murder.

More appropriately, it is suggested by many that euthanasia is a form of suicide; it is frequently referred to as “assisted suicide” and it is a sensitive topic for the medical establishment as well. A person wishing to prematurely end his or 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 or she can clearly not be punished for ending his or her own life. However, if someone helps another person end their life, they face the likelihood of being charged with murder as there exists “no special category of murder based on a motive of compassion” (Ryan). However, the legalization of assisted suicide would eliminate this issue, and to reiterate, the law is secular and it need not be concerned with the religious implications of suicide, which is itself not considered illegal in Canada.

The need for assisted suicide arises in patients with debilitating illnesses that render them incapable of committing suicide on their own; these individuals require assistance to benefit from their right to die. The emotional, and even practical, dimension of this issue can best be summed up by the publicized case of Sue Rodriguez (CBC News). This advocate for the right to die suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease and took her case to court in British Columbia, seeking to amend section 241(b) of the Criminal Code which prohibits assisted suicide (Tiedemann). Although she lost in the Supreme Court, Rodriguez inspired debate and poignantly questioned the justification of section 241(b), asking: “If I cannot give consent to my own death, then whose body is this? Who owns my life?” (CBC News).

Peter Ryan responds to this question as a Catholic, stating that God is the owner of Rodriguez’s life, and all human life for that matter. Here, we return again to the religious argument that seems to be the only leg on which to stand in opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Despite the irrelevance of this, as previously mentioned, we can wax philosophic and inquire as to why an omnipotent divinity would desire to disseminate suffering amongst those individuals he or she created?

In 1993, Robert Latimer decided to play God and euthanize his daughter, Tracy, who suffered from a painful and incapacitating form of cerebral palsy (Tiedemann). This act was committed without the presence of a doctor and Latimer was convicted of homicide. This case subsequently went through a series of appeals and the moral ambiguity of this father’s mercy killing is apparent. This man understood that he was committing a severe criminal offence, but “his priority was to put her out of her pain” and within the current legal system he saw no other choice, but to take his own daughter’s life.

A prison sentence could likely never compare with Latimer’s realization of the horrific decision he had arrived at. A person should not have to see his or her child in severe pain eternally, but a person also should not have to resort to killing his or her own offspring in order to ease unbearable pain. This process might even do more harm without achieving the desired effect of painless death. Undeniably, there ought to be a legal procedure in place that would involve trained physicians who could safely euthanize patients. This would be analogous to the task of veterinarians who put sick and dying animals “to sleep.”

On the other hand, as with the case of animals, those opposed claim that the potential for abuse is a concern should legislation be passed favouring euthanasia. One does not 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.”

However, should euthanasia and assisted suicide be legalized, there would be far more regulations and bureaucratic hoops than in animal hospitals. Also, the Nazi Germany example is very extreme, and save some sort of unforeseeable political upheaval, it is highly unlikely that the legalization of euthanasia would lead to hundreds of thousands of lives being taken unjustly within the scope of the contemporary medical and legal atmosphere.

In the end, and in spite of the strong religious opposition, it would seem that support for euthanasia and assisted suicide is gaining momentum. A recent opinion poll of Quebecers revealed that eight out of every ten respondents supported legalization and some indicated that they would choose to be euthanized or that they would choose it for family members (CBC News 2). On the contrary, it has been suggested that people living in Quebec’s French culture are more liberal in terms of values. Accordingly, a national poll has shown that 67% of Canadians agree that euthanasia should be made legal, with only 23% of respondents taking an oppositional stance (Angus Reid Global Monitor).

Ultimately, euthanasia and assisted suicide are morally ambiguous and the legalization of these medical procedures will rely on popular opinion amongst voters. Although the choice to die remains something of a taboo in Canadian society, the process of euthanizing seems entirely humane when certain severe conditions arise. It would be utilized as a last resort at the request or approval of a suffering patient. As a group, we feel that the best way to encourage the legalization of these measures is to eliminate the stigma associated with the right to die. This is also the goal of the national campaign, Dying with Dignity.

In order to do this, we are proposing an educational campaign that would focus on providing people with information regarding the conditions of euthanasia and assisted suicide. We feel that if people truly understand what is at stake, as opposed to assuming that these procedures are affronts to God to be equated with murder, then they will actively support the movement toward legalization as it becomes clear that the positives greatly outweigh the negatives. Patients suffering from pain and debilitating illness, their family members, and the nation can all benefit from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Our campaign will target youth because they are the future and can best affect long-term change. Universities are hotbeds for political discourse, but high school students are learning to question the rules that govern society and the fact that they tend to be rebellious by nature can be utilized and focussed on such important topics as euthanasia and assisted suicide. Therefore, we plan to open a dialogue with students in high schools in Mississauga via on-site power point presentations to certain classes that focus on social issues. Of course, this will rely on the compliance of the administrators of such schools and since it is unlikely that those of Catholic schools will approve of our cause we may have to get creative within the public realm, distributing information outside of school grounds.

Naturally, these traditional methods of communication will be supplemented with new, interactive ones including the use of social media devices such as Facebook and Twitter. Presumably like the great majority of our colleagues, we believe that promoting the legalization euthanasia and assisted suicide through these tools will cater to people within our age cohort, as we make up of the largest demographic using networking websites such as these.