Social Policy-Making Case Analysis

.“As medical technology continues to advance and health care choices become more complicated, the preservation of end-of-life autonomy is an increasingly important issue faced by various client populations.” (Galambos, 1998).

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

A Life or Death Situation, by Robin Marantz Henig, New York Times, July, 2013, is a review of the debate surrounding the right to a dignified death. It examines the purely philosophical view of the issue; as well as the heart wrenching reality of being faced with that question in one 's personal life. Does a person have a right to choose how he or she dies? How does that choice impact the people who care about about him or her? Should a person who cares about someone be required to cause or aide in his or her death? These questions weigh heavy on the minds of many people, who live

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.

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

Autonomy explores the idea of every person having rights in regards to healthcare and decision making. “Autonomy is an agreement to respect another’s right to self-determine a course of action and support independent decision making” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2009). In 1990, the ideas of autonomy lead to the Patient Self Determination Act which allows competent people to make their wishes known about end of life. The act includes living wills and health care power of attorneys, which deals with end of

This essay will argue how the society dictates the state, as it will be organized into six sections. The first part of the essay provides the opposing argument that the social compact is dictated by the state. In the next section, I will demonstrate why the opposing points are weak and provide my main arguments. The arguments will comprise of how individuals in a society create laws and we collectively can change and implement new laws. The four ways individuals can

There are many things that help to create a society, which includes laws, bills, policy, and procedures. These are typically created by the Supreme Court of Canada and Political Leaders who run our country. These rules are driven out of a need required by society, for society. In 2016, Canada passed a new bill for assisted-dying. This paper will review the article; Liberals’ assisted-dying bill is now law after clearing final hurdles. (Appendix A)

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

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

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.

The concept of autonomy supports capable patients to make their own decisions regarding their care (8). Patient have the “right to decide how one is to live one’s life, in particular how to make critical life-decisions (9)” and one can argue that this right also extends to choosing the manner death (10). This right is also supported by Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (11).” The Trial Judge in the Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) 2015 case ruled that prohibiting MAID would interfere with a patient’s life and infringe on the liberty and security of that patient (5). The prohibition of MAID interferes with a patient’s life because it may lead some patients to end their life early they are still capable of doing so. Furthermore, prohibiting MAID would interfere with the patient’s ability to “make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care” and prevent the patient from having control over his or her bodily integrity that is free from state interference (5). Therefore, the respect for patient autonomy strongly supports Bill

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

The question is, as stated by McCann: Can courts produce a huge social reform? When Rosenberg says can there be a huge social reform he means this in a way that it would have an impact nationwide. Rosenberg acknowledges the fact that there are two different way of getting the causal connection in a courts conclusion and these social reforms that are trying to happen to make these changes. The first way a court can come to these conclusion is through the judicial track, which is the more law and authoritative approach. The second way this can be done is often seen as and “indirect” court action. This is an indirect track to take because it is based off of the judicial will that is established because of people and officials that have modified their actions towards these normative arguments that are made widely known by the

Respect for rights is displayed in an array of ways when it comes to death with dignity. Unitarian Universalists advocate the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths; and that Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice (George, 2015).