Canada 's New Laws Regarding Doctor Assisted Suicide

This case is the case of Rodriguez v. British Columbia in 1993. Sue Rodriguez had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; more commonly know as Lou Gehrig’s disease, in 1991. Rodriguez was aware that this disease would eventually lead to her not being able to breathe on her own, move on her own, or even eat without a feeding tube. Rodriguez had the attitude that she wanted to enjoy as much of life as possible, but when the time came that she could no longer enjoy life, she wanted the assistance of a doctor to end her life. In her own words, she asked, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”(Windsor Sun). In the opinion of Rodriguez, she should have the choice to end her life, and that if she could not do the act without assistance, it should be legal for a physician to help her. She ended up losing her case in a Supreme Court appeal. The decision stated, “No consensus can be found in favour of the decriminalization of assisted suicide. To the extent that there is consensus, human life must be respected.” (Windsor

Assisted suicide is a topic that has ignited a severe debate due to the controversy that surrounds its implementation. Assisted suicide occurs when a patients expresses their intention to die and request a physician to assist them in the process. Some countries like Oregon, Canada, and Belgium have legalized the process terming it as an alternative to prolonged suffering for patients who are bound to die. Unlike euthanasia where a physician administers the process, assisted suicide requires that the patient voluntarily initiates and executes the process. Although there exists concession such a process is important to assist patients die without much suffering, there has emerged criticism on its risk of abuse and as an expression of medical

In late February 2016, a recent debate among Canadian politicians arose on whether mature minors have the right to access doctor-assisted suicide within Canada. In Canadian Paediatric Society1 article, it explains how the government has a three-year deadline in order to create new legislation. However, the the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) believes that this three-year deadline Is not enough time to “gather adequate and appropriate information” on whether this practice should be allowed to be extended to minors under the age of 18. Currently, the CPS believes that it will be very hard to develop any data the experience of physician-assisted deaths among adults, within the next 3 years. The CPS stated that “Without that data, and a great deal of other information, it is premature to set a deadline for enacting legislation” (2016). The CBC brought up valuable points to the cause, firstly that age is ‘arbitrary’. Dr. Smith stated in the CBC article that there are some people who are 21, while there are those that are 14, and have the maturity to give consent, he went on to explain that he feels that this topic should go to even younger children. Later in the article Conservative MP Mike Cooper said that this was “illogical” and that those not old enough to vote should not have the right to choose if they live or die. The CBC went on to reiterate what the CPS article was about, saying that with such little data on the subject, and with two very distinct sides to this ethical

The SCC Carter case of 2015, known as Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), deals with the controversial question of whether or not the prohibition of assisted suicide is a violation of a Canadian’s right to life, liberty, and security. Under section 241 of the Criminal Code, it prohibits in the act of assisting another to commit suicide. The appellants argue that this prohibition is cruel on competent adults who have the mental capacity to consent to their own deaths and who are suffering from a medical condition that causes them endured suffering and pain. One of the appellants is Gloria Taylor, who was diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), which causes deteriorating voluntary muscles, preventing her from moving or even breathing

The Canadian Medical Association defines physician-assisted death (PAD) as “[when] a physician knowingly and intentionally provides a person with the knowledge and/or means required to end their own lives…”. (A, p29) In Canada, suicide has been legal for years, but euthanasia and physician-assisted death have only recently been decriminalized in a court of law. However, until 2016, PAD can still be charged as “culpable homicide” under section 222 and 229 of the Criminal Code of Canada. (B,K) The specifics of the debate on physician-assisted death in Canada has, over the decades, not significantly changed, but instead Canadians’ opinions have been shifted since information from Belgium, Columbia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland,

Physician-assisted suicide involves a doctor purposely and knowingly providing knowledge or means or both, required to commit suicide by a patient or a person willing to die. Patients that suffer from serious cancers or disease that have no cure, usually suffer the pain in hospital bed till time comes for them to permanently be free from pain. This process offers an immediate relief to those patients. Should physician-assisted suicide be permitted in Canada? Physician-assisted suicide should not be permitted in Canada as life is God’s most valuable gift to any human and by ending it, considers to be disrespect of God and his gift of been given a human form. In fact, physician assisted suicide should not be permitted in any country and countries

The meaning of life differs for everyone but is commonly an opportunity to maximize overall individual happiness. The diversity of the Canadian society encompasses many different views on whether it is morally and ethically right for someone to suffer. Assisted death is providing people who are suffering the opportunity to die with dignity. This paper will focus on why assisted suicide needs to be readily available by elaborating on the quality of life versus quantity, how assisted death could be in the best interest of everyone impacted and the financial expenses of medical care.

The laws are presented to the reader as a way of stepping stones, allowing the reader to progress from one to another. The stepping stones become the progression of the argument of the progressive country that the Netherlands is in regard to physician assisted suicide and for the possibility of Canada to evolve into the same. The author does this because the legal system in Canada is currently being evaluated to eliminate the inherent risks associated with active euthanasia/physician assisted suicide. The author strengthens her position by citing a distinguished philosophy professor in bioethics, further highlighted that the article is printed in the Penn Bioethics Journal. She is directly speaking to her audience through an individual that is credible, and one of the

Firstly, a man's father had not received doctor assisted suicide because he did not reach requirements even though he had prostate cancer. He needed a approval from 2 healthcare providers. One of them had approved and the other denied because the healthcare worker assumed that he wasn't in distress. As time passed, 2 weeks later the man's father died in a home that cared for the sick. Furthermore, even though the man had prostate cancer and he was going to die, he could not get doctor assisted suicide because it was assumed that he was not in distress. Secondly, a person with a grievous and irremediable medical condition can only be granted to get doctor assisted suicide. A doctor in Toronto said that just because of this law only 1 out of 10 requests for medically assisted dying are granted. Additionally, the doctor had also stated that there are many reasons why a patient can not be granted doctor assisted suicide and the most common one is that their condition might not be too severe and their death may not be foreseeable. Many kill themselves because they can not bear the pain that others can not see. Thirdly, the mentally ill are not being included for doctor assisted suicide. There are many organizations that fight for this right but the main one is "Dying with Dignity". This organization argues that the bill passed by Canada called C-14 discludes the mentally ill. Additionally, this is a violation to charter of rights. People have the right to make decisions about treatment according to Ontario's Health Care Consent Act. Although, they can only make these decisions if they are capable which means if they understand the information about the treatments and the consequences of refusing the treatment. Moreover, research states that the general public and health workers do not wish that the law includes these

At the heart of the debate of doctor assisted suicide is the supreme court trial of Carter v Canada. This was the catalyst which lead to the national legalization of assisted suicide. One of the major arguments against this law was that of the safeguards and regulations needed to protect Canadians from harm. Proponents against physician assisted suicide believe that any bill that are created for such a cause will have “inadequacy of safeguards and the potential to devalue human life” (Carter v Canada, 344). Thus, leaving those who are pro-assisted suicide require to create guidelines and protections for all parties involved with process. Allowing for there to be proper and adequate safeguards for assisted suicide is of vital importance to this law as it is these safeguards are the foundation of the assisted suicide law.

Death is an uncomfortable subject to talk about for most people. They're afraid for what lies after death, whether that be Heaven, Hell, or nothing; It all depends on your views. But one of the least talked about ways of dying is Physician Assisted Suicide. Only four states offer Physician Assisted Suicide: Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the latest to allow is California. There are those who don't agree with this route of death but there are those who support it. I'm here to tell you that this is a acceptable route of dying. This paper will support one's right to die by Physician Assisted Suicide. The key points we'll cover is one's eligibility to death with dignity, exhausting all other care options, and lastly the obtaining and ingesting

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

Following this, the legalization of assisted suicide can be ensured to help “safeguard” democracy, which allows the issue to require additional attention. Safeguards are intended to make sure that people make free, informed decisions, and that they consider all possible options. Having assisted suicide legal achieves this, because it is a compassionate response to relieve the suffering of dying patients, allowing a group of individuals to have their rights respected in terms of democracy. In addition, in most places where assisted suicide is legal, two physicians are involved in determining recommendations. To safeguard against decisions driven by depression, people with signs and symptoms must be referred to a psychiatrist. Canada as well

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.

Euthanasia is “the deliberate act undertaken by means of putting one person with the intention of ending the life of another person, to relieve that person’s suffering where that act is the cause of death”. On June 17th 2016 the Canadian government passed a new federal legislation “creating a regulatory framework for the purpose of medical assistance in dying in Canada”. The euthanasia procedure is new to the medical industry although it is widely recognized in the veterinary industry. Unfortunately, it is unpredictable how death will personally play its part on our lives, as everyone, wishes to die a peaceful and dignified death that is not at all times the case. This is shown in individuals living with a terminal illness, or that are in an irreversible coma. What is often forgotten is that death is a normal part of life as it is inevitable. Therefore, if an individual personally wishes to be euthanized at the end of their life due to the unbearable pain and suffrage they are enduring it is more than acceptable. Whereas to force a person to suffer while await the moment their life will end is in fact a punishment and a truly inhumane act.