Bill C-14 Violates The Rights Of Doctors

“I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;” (WMA 1). The previous statement is an excerpt from the Declaration of Geneva, or the Physician’s Oath. The Physician’s Oath was adopted in 1948 by the Word Medical Association at Geneva. This oath is taken by most physicians as a guideline for their duties as an expert in any medical field. However, there is a clause that undermines this known as The Conscience Clause. The Conscience Clause is a clause that made its place in American history around 1973 as the decision in the case Roe V. Wade. The Conscience clause enables someone to refuse to do a specific thing involving their line-of-work if they believe it infringes on their religious beliefs. The conscience clause was enacted after the Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade in 1973. This clause was put into place in medical, and pharmaceutical fields as a means of protecting someone’s ethical and moral beliefs. The conscience clause should be abolished because it can inflict serious harm to those who need a live-saving treatment or medication. The clause can also be used as a means of discrimination and give some people a reason to just not do their jobs.

Why is important for the HIPAA and the Bill of Right work in the healthcare system.

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

“[t]he court ruled that laws making physician-assisted death illegal violated Canadians’ constitutional rights in cases where an adult clearly consents to the termination of life and has a grievous and irremediable medical condition." (Larson)

The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling concerning physician-assisted dying in the case of Carter vs. Canada answers the following two questions: 1) Does the current law against physician-assisted dying infringe an individual’s right to life, liberty and security and 2) If the law is a violation of this right, is this violation justified under the Charter of Right’s general limitation clause. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on the first question was in the affirmative. The Supreme Court rules that the prohibition of physician assisted dying is void because it deprives a competent adult of assistance when “(1) the person affected clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) the person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition

On the other hand, the concern that physician assisted suicide is violation of a doctor’s hypocrite oath. (Yang & Curlin, 2016)

In a momentous decision released February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Physician-assisted suicide will be legal in Canada within 12 months. This deci-sion has caused a myriad of controversy. Opponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that the constitution recognizes the sanctity of life and no one has the right to end the life of another person’s. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that patients who experience constant pain and misery due to health issues must be allowed to have the right to die with dignity of their own choices. This means it is necessary for the government to take measures to protect the right of those people who suffer. Though both arguments offer val-id points, it is absolutely crucial that all human beings should be entitled the essential right to be painlessly and safely relieved of suffering caused by incurable diseases.

There is always extortion in everything that is done, so many argue that there will be at least one person that will be killed unjustly. Pro-life advocates argue that if one person is sacrificed it is not worth it; physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized. In Robert P. Jones’s book, Liberalism’s Troubled Search for Equality: Religion and Cultural Bias in the Oregon Physician-Assisted Suicide Debates, he offers insight to different peoples view on physician-assisted suicide, and there was one person, George Eighmey, that contradicted what pro-life advocates are articulating about sacrifice.

Imagine being someone one day then all of a sudden the next day you become nobody. Just like that a major event may occur in your life as well as those around you. Physician Assisted Dying (PAD) and euthanasia has just recently been legal here in Canada as of 2015. Bill 52, which allows for euthanasia, is a bill that allows people to have medical help dying, as long as they have an incurable illness. The patient must be in constant unbearable physical or psychological pain that cannot be helped. In order to receive PAD, the patient must be an adult whom is capable of consent. Minors, adults who lack decision-making, and other classes of patients such as the mentally ill do not qualify. While many people think it’s ethically wrong regardless of their health condition to ask their health care provider to assist in ending their lives; others feel as if it’s their right to choose how and when they die. A physician has numerous responsibilities that need to be taken into account when a patient as asked them to assist them into death. The physician needs to provide valid information to the patient like how there is other treatments or therapies, educating the patient on their decision, and they also need to make sure this decision came solely from the patients themselves. Physician Assisted Dying influences people with the concept that they have to right to die whenever they desire. Instead of taking your life for granted, this should come to a halt and not be extended to other

Recently, due to the Carter v. Canada case in 2012, euthanasia, or medically assisted dying, was legalized in Canada. And, with a topic like euthanasia, people’s rights and freedoms become called into question both with, doctors and patients, specifically, freedom of religion, as well as freedom of expression and the life, liberty, and security of the person. Though the case occurred in British Columbia, the province of Ontario created a regulation stating that if a doctor refuses to assist their patients in dying, they must refer them to another doctor who would or, they would face possible disciplinary action. One of the main concerns that arose with this decision was religious doctors arguing that even having to provide referrals go against

A Canadian study determined that terminally ill patients were most concerned with existential suffering as a result of deteriorating health status and the inability to make their own medical decisions. Health care should be structured in a manner that allows the patient to make fully informed decisions and we should legally be able to respect them. As nursing students, we have been taught the importance of providing care in a manner that empowers the patient and supports patient autonomy. Healthcare is no longer paternalistic and the patient has the right to make informed decisions regarding treatments, medications and ultimately the right to live. Denying the patient’s rights to make decisions about their own life serves nobody’s interests. The Supreme Court is delaying making the final decision regarding Medically-Assisted Suicide due to the fact that there have been physicians that strongly oppose the act and 63% of physicians have voted that they would not participate due to conscientious objection. Some physicians feel as if legalizing an act of allowing the patient cause themselves harm would compromise the physician-patient relationship, however data from a state that has legalized medically assisted dying shows that patients are more likely to become upset by physicians who oppose and refuse medically assisted suicide more than by physicians who support it. Ultimately, due to their wishes not being respected and refused due to the beliefs of the

Physician-assisted euthanasia is when a physician intends to cause the death of another person through legal means. Although euthanasia means a “good death”, it is wrong. In their articles Wolf and Prejean make this known through giving moral arguments against physician involvement in end of life events. Although Wolf focuses on gender-biases within the hospital, and Prejean talks about inmates on death row; they both argue that active euthanasia is geared towards marginalized people, and disregards human dignity.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

I learned so much from our guest speaker, Andre Picard, the Globe and Mail's Public Health reporter. He made me rethink my whole perspective on patients right with his talk about assisted suicide and abortion. Contrary to popular belief, doctors are not bound by the Hippocratic Oath. However, they may choose to do so and follow it. Consequently, this means that they can refuse assisted suicide as it harms someone’s life. What really struck me was when he said that he believed that “a patients’ rights should triumph doctors’ oath to protect and save.” This was appalling to me at first, but after giving it more thought it made sense. I was able to piece together what he meant by that as the right to have a choice gives people autonomy and dignity

The patient voluntarily wanted to end his life because he was suffering from Lou Gehrigs’s disease (Siu, 2008). Since then, the controversy over active euthanasia has remained an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers, patients and their family members in America and the rest of the world. The general public’s belief is that, health-care providers have professional obligations to save the lives of their patients regardless of their health status. The majority of the public feels that, healthcare workers’ involvement in the euthanasia practice is a betrayal of the “do no harm” oath. When a healthcare worker is involved in either active or passive euthanasia, it can be viewed as a disregard to this value. However, the proponents for euthanasia claim that a physician turning down a suffering patient’s request to end their life is also a violation to the “do no harm” oath (Siu, 2008). The right to die falls under patient’s autonomy and the basic question is whether individuals should be allowed to end their lives if they choose to do so (Sanders & Chaloner 2007). Those in the healthcare sector grapple with this notion on a daily bases because they have to practice under the codes of ethics guidelines. Nurses and doctors should be cautious in their practice as they balance the patient’s autonomy and their professional ethics and guidelines. Sanders & Chaloner (2007) pointed out that nurses and doctors know that a patient's autonomy