Legalization Of Euthanasia In Canada

Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial issue both in Canada and countries around the world. In most of the world, assisted suicide is still illegal, but there appears to be some movement towards its legalization. Regardless of this shift towards the possible legalization of assisted suicide, there is still substantial resistance and debate regarding the issue. On one hand, those who support assisted suicide mostly use the ethical argument that everyone should have the right to choose how and when they die and that they should be able to die with dignity. Another factor is the “quality of life” issue, which means a person should no longer have to live, if they feel their life is no longer worth living. On the contrary, the argument against

Active and passive euthanasia has been a controversial topic for many decades. Medicine has become so advanced, even the most ill patients can be kept alive by artificial means. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action taken to end a person’s life, such as lethal dose of medication (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014). Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by not intervening or stopping a treatment that is keeping them alive (Garrard, 2014). There are three main arguments within this issue; Firstly, in the healthcare setting, it is morally accepted to allow a patient to die but purposely killing a patient is not (Garrard, 2014). Secondly, some people believe there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.

The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed and a dangerous practice has been set. The concern is that a society that permits voluntary euthanasia will progressively change its stances to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia. Legal voluntary euthanasia could ultimately lead to a widespread range of unanticipated consequences, such as very ill people who need endless care, or people with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not and do not feel as a problem to their family and occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about an individuals diagnosis and position, and the person may choose euthanasia after

In a more recent court decision, Carter v. Canada was a game-changer for the movement to grant Canadians the right to die with dignity. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the high court struck down on the federal prohibition on doctor-assisted dying. It was argued that the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the law regarding doctor assisted dying was created because of Carter v. Canada, the immediate and known risks associated with doctor assisted dying are being addressed and managed by establishing a strict but fair criteria for determining who can access doctor assisted dying and the safeguards that are in place to safely administer it. To meet the criteria, he/she must be a competent adult, clearly consent to the termination of life, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and experience enduring suffering that is intolerable in the circumstances of his or her condition. Doctors are required to use their knowledge, skill and judgement to assess an individual’s aptness for doctor assisted death, in conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria. We must recognize that within these criteria are sub-criteria’s and there are many steps to this procedure.

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

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 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

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

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, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional act of terminating one’s life, who is suffering from an incurable illness or a terminal disease. This act requires explicit consent from the person who wishes to die and it must also be done out of concern and compassion for that person who is suffering. Several legislative attempts have been made to legalise euthanasia in parts of Australia. However, at the present time, it remains unlawful. With Euthanasia being illegal all across Australia it has forced our citizens overseas to unregulated medical centres in hope of having access to a

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

The slippery slope argument has been ongoing in the euthanasia debate. The “slippery slope” refers to the belief that legalizing voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide will lead to undesirable outcomes. Many speculate that the legalization of involuntary euthanasia will lead to the legalization of murder. Since euthanasia is legalized in the Netherlands, some argue that it has caused a slippery slope. Now, people believe legalizing euthanasia in the United States will also cause a slippery slope. Although this may be true, there is not sufficient evidence to support this argument as the rates of euthanasia have dropped in the Netherlands since it has been legalized. Doctors try to encourage patients to undergo hospice or other types of care before resorting to euthanasia. Under strict guidelines, euthanasia can be controlled so it can benefit patients without being abused and causing a slippery slope.

Ending an individual’s life intentionally for the purpose of relieving the person from pain or suffering is considered as euthanasia. A good example of euthanasia is a case where a doctor opts to give a cancer patient an overdose of drugs that is supposed to make him die. Encouraging or aiding a person in committing suicide intentionally could be regarded as assisted suicide. An example could be acquiring a powerful sedative for a person who is terminally ill with the awareness that the person will certainly utilize the medication to commit suicide. There are many countries in various parts which have legalized euthanasia including but not limited to Belgium, Australia, Colombia, Netherlands, Mexico, Ireland and some states of America. Further, a number of countries have come up with policies that reinforce the practice of aiding one to die also known as mercy killing. This paper focuses on comparing the accessibility level of euthanasia in two countries, Belgium vs Australia, two countries where the practice of “mercy killing” is fully recognized and legalized.

Consequently, there has been an academic debate in Canada on whether the recent legalization of euthanasia violates the universal human right to life. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, became legal in 2016 and has caused controversy over claims that it does not respect human dignity and the sanctity of human life because it advocates for the end of life. This raises constitutional issues because the Charter ensures the right to life and liberty. I believe that euthanasia substantiates a human’s right to life by supporting the right to die, maintaining human dignity, and preserving the sanctity of life; thus it is constitutional.

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.