Physician Assisted Suicide : The Canadian Euthanasia Debate

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).

Physician assisted suicide is a controversial moral issue that I feel should be allowed in all states not just a few. Right now there are only five states that have some type of death with dignity law; one which has some extra steps that need to be taken to be able to use the law. Over the last year there has been more media coverage on this topic because of a young woman named Brittany Maynard, who decided to tell her story with needing this option. The real question though should be do we have the right to tell someone that they do not deserve to have this choice?

People have been questioning the ethics of physician assisted suicide since the late 18th century. According to medicinenet the definition of physician assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one 's own life by administrating a lethal substance with the direct assistance of a physician.” This would typically come into play if/when a critically ill patient wants to end their suffering. Confirming with the State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide, 5 states have

Physician-assisted suicide is controversial in healthcare and political realms alike. Currently, this end-of-life option is practiced in five states within the United States. Social concerns regarding assisted suicide revolve around ethical quandaries; providing the means to a patient’s death is contradictory to ethical principles of healthcare providers. Political concerns surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide include disparities in healthcare that may lead to certain populations choosing assisted suicide and the stagnation of current care options. While there is no succinct manner in which to declare assisted suicide right or wrong, each individual must address the social and political concerns surrounding the issue when voting for legislation to legalize assisted suicide or pursuing the option for themselves.

Additionally, the term “euthanasia” does not mean the same thing as assisted suicide. Often people confuse these processes when they differ immensely. Despite this, they remain similar in their resulting death of a human life through the help of a physician. Euthanasia is the direct killing of a patient by a physician by means of lethal injection and it is completely controlled by the doctor. On the other hand, patients in assisted suicide have full control over the process that leads to their death. For this reason, procedures of these sorts must be eliminated as medical treatments and should not be authorized. Consequently, physician assisted suicide has been proven to lead to euthanasia in some cases. Assisted suicide should become illegal in all fifty states of the United States of America because it raises religious concern, endorses legalized murder, puts vulnerable people at risk of abuse, and

of life. Death is inevitable. Why should each of us not have the right to

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

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

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

As a result of this, the substantial issue unfolds. Assisted suicide is illegal under the terms of the Suicide Act (1961) in Canada, and is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment, yet the attempt to kill yourself in not a criminal act in itself. Unfortunately, people seeking assisted suicide are incapable of committing the act themselves, which thus requires the aid of another person. Due to this, a number of Canadians have been prosecuted for helping ill patients or loved ones die. Marielle Houle, for example, was sentenced to three years by a Quebec court in 2004 for helping her 36 year old son, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, end his life; according to CBC News. Unfortunately, Canada is not alone in ruling assisted suicide illegal,

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

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.

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.

Physician assisted suicide, the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. The question of whether or not this practice should be made legal in the United States has been one of controversy since 1997. Beginning with the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that the matter of the constitutionality of a right to a physician’s aid in dying, was best left up to the states. Then gaining even more controversy when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which allowed terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives by the practice of physician assisted suicide. (CNN.com) Proponents of physician assisted suicide