Robert Latimer Case

In 2006, surgeons mistakenly removed the right testicle instead of the left of 47-year-old Air Force veteran Benjamin Houghton according to medical records and a claim filed by Houghton and his wife Monica. Apparently, the surgery was not urgent, since Houghton was first been diagnosed with metastatic testicular cancer in 1989. At that time he declined surgery, reports Los Angeles Times, and retired after receiving chemotherapy at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. While there had been no sign of the cancer's recurrence, his left testicle was left atrophied and painful. There was also a chance that it could harbor cancer cells.

The question everyone is arguing is whether or not assisted suicide should be legalized. In order for people to truly argue and decide whether assisted suicide should be legal they must know the definition. Many people mix up the definition of assisted suicide with euthanasia. There are both arguments for assisted suicide and against it. When arguing for and against assisted suicide the big argument seems to be whether it is morally right or morally wrong. The question of whether assisted suicide should be legal question what is the value of life, is it morally right or is it morally wrong and why does it matter. I believe the answer to whether assisted suicide is morally right or wrong depends on each individual, but in order to decide, you must be informed about assisted suicide and the sides against and for it.

Those who knew Bob Lyons thought extremely well of him. He was a highly successful executive who held an important position in a large company. As his superiors saw him, he was aggressive, with a knack for getting things done through other people. He worked hard and set a vigorous pace. He drove himself relentlessly. In less than ten years with his company, he had moved through several positions of responsibility.

Assisted suicide is an ethical topic that has sparked up many controversies. Individuals have heated disputes on whether or not patients who are suffering should have the right to die. Some worry that legalizing euthanasia is irrational and would violate some religions, while others argue that it provides a peaceful death towards terminally ill patients who are suffering from pain. Physician-assisted suicide is a contentious matter, in which there are many positive and negative aspects, whether or not it should be committed is a complex decision.

For a quite a while, Euthanasia and assisted suicide have been a topic of debate. The concern stretches from the legal, moral, religious and emotional basis. The query at hand is "what is the appropriate response to assisted suicide?" As opposed to Wolf's hastened response of "No". It is widely accepted that there are varied reasons for allowing Physician-assisted suicide. However, Euthanasia is not as widely permitted. Reason to this is that physician assisted suicide is not like to be abused; since patients take the last, calamitous step. For Euthanasia, which is Mercy killing; abuse may result with the Physicians patient's relative taking up to advocate for their own wishes the patient having little or nothing to do about it.

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

Few cases have generated as much public controversy. The role of the High Court in this drama was, however, a minor one. Controversy did not stem from the novelty and significance of the doctrinal issues raised by the case but from the ‘facts’: the question of what had

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

Latimer had been a farmer, in rural Saskatchewan at the time of the death/murder of Tracy Latimer, his daughter who had a severe form of cerebral palsy which caused her to be immobile and go through numerous surgeries and be booked for more. The murder happened when Latimer’s wife and his other children went out; this act either shows that he wanted to protect his wife and other children from the death, even though they would inevitably find out about the death at some point in time, or he was trying to conceal the act of murder. Latimer also showed premeditation towards the murder, deciding whether or not he should shoot or cause an overdose to cause the death of his daughter; ultimately Latimer decided to do none of these things and

Robert Glaser was having a blast when in 1995 he attended a Billy Joel concert at Jack Murphy Stadium. Really into the music, a mystery in itself, Glaser finds he has to answer nature's call. He goes to the nearest restroom and finds a woman in there squatting over a urinal. Glaser is embarrassed thinking he has entered the wrong bathroom. His search continues. But, every restroom he finds he also finds a woman in it. Desperate for privacy to pee, he his disheartened when he discovers the bathrooms at the stadium are unisex. Logically, Glaser chooses to hold it for the rest of the concert. Being a Billy Joel concert that was only a short four hours.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and served an eight year prison sentence. (Fridstein. 1). This accomplished physician graduated from the University of Michigan with an impressively high IQ. He was a writer, inventor, movie producer and classical composer. (Kevorkian). Why would a man so intelligent and successful end up in jail for murder? Well believe or not he purposely challenged the legal system in a one man crusade to ignite a national discussion on the subjects of assisted suicide, Euthanasia and one’s constitutional right to choose. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that involves a person being induced with a soothing, relaxing medicine that allows them a peaceful passing. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, summed it up best when he said, "We’re just talking about the right not of children and not of mentally incompetent people but the right of mentally competent adults to make decisions about their own bodies as to how much suffering they have to undergo.” (Kevorkian). Euthanasia is not for people experiencing temporary illness or unhappiness. It’s for people who are imprisoned by their own unbearable physical pain for the rest of their lives with no way out. Is it fair to not give those people a choice? Is it fair to make them slowly deteriorate while losing their dignity? I think not. That is why I support euthanasia being legalized, “Dying is not a crime.” (Fridstein. 1).

Ethical issues are not the only problem. Some argue that euthanasia also creates issues from a legal perspective. “One legal question is whether assisted suicide violates the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law governing the distribution of drugs” (Lee). Such

Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

Those who support assisted suicide and euthanasia also argue that the patient has right to make the choice when it comes to how they die. If you can choose to deny medical treatment, which can lead to death, then assisted suicide and euthanasia will lead to the same result, but one is legally excepted and the other illegal, Justice Scalia makes comical comparison, “say that one may not kill oneself by walking into the sea, but may sit on the beach until submerged by the incoming tide;” (Grouch 50). Also, those who support assisted suicide and euthanasia believe that ending the life of another prematurely so the person will not suffer is an act of compassion has supporters explain, “it generates an obligation to relieve suffering.”(Foley and Hendin 43)