Medical Assisted Death : An Act Respecting End Of Life Care

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

There are currently three states that have adopted legislation supporting “Death with Dignity”, also known as physician-assisted suicide. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have each enacted laws that enable a terminally ill, mentally competent, adult to decide and dictate end of life decisions up to and including the time of their death. Oregon was the first United States (U.S.) to enact legislation and other states in the union have followed suit.

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.

To begin, patients can die with dignity. Dying with dignity is the philosophical concept that a terminally ill individual should be allowed to die naturally and comfortably instead of experiencing a life of deep unconsciousness prolonged by mechanical support systems. (Death with Dignity) In 1993, Sue Rodriguez, a sufferer of ALS, believed that the time and manner of her death should not be determined by her illness or by the law. She expressed that it should be legal for a physician to end her life for her at a time she has chosen. (Fenton) Rodriguez took her case to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, she argued that Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code, everyone who aids or abets a person in committing suicide commits an indictable offence, violates her rights in the Charter under Section 7, that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security, 12, that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any

“[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)

Fighting for the right to die has been an ongoing battle between the courts and people for a long time, first in 1991, Sue Rodriguez was declined the right to a physician-assisted death. Again in 2011, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association looked to reverse the Rodrigues case decision in what was called a “Landmark Case” in Carter versus Canada. In February of 2015, the 9 supreme courts ruled that doctors could use assisted suicide in some circumstances provided they fit the rules set out by the Carter ruling (Murphy, 2017). As a result, to the case revisions to the federal Criminal Code for PAD in Canada were made in June of 2016 (Edwards, 2016). The Canadian Nurses Protective Society (2015), explains, “the patient must be of legal age, suffer an “incurable serious illness” and “irreversible decline in capability” resulting in “constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain” (p. 29). To begin the process of medically assisted dying patients need to make a request in writing and two doctors must independently examine the application if accepted a week cooling off period must take place (Richmond, 2014). The applicant must then meet criteria that has been laid out by the legislation; the physician must ensure the decision has been made without any external pressure. The second doctor must agree and if so then the patients wish can be granted and can start on

With states having the option to choose legalization, the few that have the law in place limit its use to terminally ill patients (Ardelt 5). Terminal illness is defined as a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is expected to result in death of the patient within a short time (Benjamin 4). Most recent is Vermont, which legalized assisted suicide in May 2013, making legalization relevant to today’s society and issues with the possibility of more states legalizing these methods (Benjamin 3). With millions of patients being diagnosed with terminal illnesses, such as cancer, heart disease, and fatal accidents, both those patients and their families are exposed to the compelling aspects of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (Swarte 2). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized in the United States due to safety concerns, economic challenges, and society’s outlook on these

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

In 1997 a Supreme Court case, Washington v Glucksberg, questioned the status quo asserting that a physician should not be allowed to legally assist a terminally ill individual if he or she wishes to die. While the plaintiffs lost, the case made clear that several people in the country were questioning the status quo. The legality of physician assisted dying (PAD), synonymous with death with dignity, ultimately rests on the opinions of the public (which are often religiously and politically influenced) and therefore is dependent on a theory known as system justification (New York University). (System justification states that people will accept and even defend a status quo, simply because it is the norm.) This case was one of the many steps

Geriatrics is a branch of medicine that specializes in the health of the elderly persons in the society, with the primary goal of promoting their health through the prevention and treatment of various diseases and disabilities. There is no established age limit medically at which a patient is termed geriatric, but the decision is largely guided by the needs of a particular person and the availability of a geriatrician. The elderly persons in the society are always victims of various chronic and severe acute diseases, some of which are incurable and end up killing these patients in a painful manner (Cassidy, 2010). Some of the diseases that these elderly people suffer from include incontinence, loss of memory, immobility,

In February 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Criminal Code provision prohibiting assisted suicide, though the ruling does not take effect until 2016. Among those challenging were the families of Kay Carter, a woman suffering from degenerative spinal steno-sis, and Gloria Taylor, a woman suffering for ALS, both of whom are deceased. As government struggles to draft a Bill that protects all, we pause to consider once again this very important is-sue in our world today within the context of Christian ethics.

For this assignment, I read four articles in all—two that are decidedly against what they call “assisted suicide”, and two that are decidedly supportive of what they call “death with dignity”. This has become legalized for terminally-ill patients with prognoses of surviving no longer than six months, first in Oregon in 1998, but since then Washington, California, and Vermont. It has also been legalized in Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg for some years now, in these countries, patients need not even be terminally ill to be granted permission to end their lives under the guidance of a physician. While both “assisted suicide” and “death with dignity” mean the same thing, physician-assisted suicide of patients who, for whatever reason, want to end their lives, the difference in terminology underlies a stark moral conflict, inspiring each side to be blinded by their respective convictions.

According to many, chronically ill people feel more dignified and become less of a burden if they choose to go under physician assisted suicide. This is one of the most commonly considered factors sick people will think about, resulting in them following through with euthanasia. Angie Bloomquist, a woman with Lou Gehrig's Disease which resulted in the collapse of all her muscles, knows her presence is putting a strain on the people she loves most (Freeman). She is fighting for her right to die peacefully through euthanasia. A study conducted in Oregon, the only state where euthanasia is legal, 66% of hopelessly ill people choose this method of “care” because of the fact they are a burden (Freeman). Like many others, Bloomquist’s pain is leaving

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing someone who is terminally ill in order to prevent or cease suffering. Euthanasia derives from the Greek word meaning “good death”. “Eu” meaning well/good and “thanatos” meaning death. The words were combined and resulted in the 17th century term of euthanasia. Allowing a patient to die painlessly and with the least amount of damage emotionally and physically left behind connects the origin of the word to my argument of legalizing euthanasia, so patients can have access to a “good death”. There are a few different types of euthanasia; all are different considering the situation and consent of the patient. This essay will constrain of the argument to legalize all types of euthanasia in Canada. The act of euthanasia is illegal everywhere in the world except for Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Canada should adopt the practice of euthanasia to therefore end the physical suffering of terminally ill patients, subside the emotional suffering of the patient’s families along with the climbing debt left behind resulting from treatment and for the patient to die at his or her own request with their dignity.