Euthanasia in Canada - Essay Example

Euthanasia in Canada Euthanasia in Canada Introduction Debate about the legalization or the illegalization of euthanasia (physicianassisted suicide) continues to elicit mixed reactions among the policymakers and other societal members across the globe, with some advocating for it. However, other individuals perceive euthanasia to be morally incriminating, and relentlessly contest for its ultimate elimination. Both proponents and critics of euthanasia cite various arguments to support their claims. For instance, the proponents of physician assisted suicide may claim that the patient undergoing excruciating pain with no apparent chance of recovery ought to have a chance to opt for a slow, dignified death instead of bearing such terminal pains. Conversely, the critics of the issue claim that the perpetrators of euthanasia are the same individuals mandated with the task of preserving life, and they have no evidence that such patients may not recover. Besides, the motives of such acts may be questionable. As such, this manuscript will mull over the contentious issue of euthanasia, and provide a well-advised opinion of whether to support or to oppose physician assisted suicide. The manuscript will also mull over the legal aspects of euthanasia in Canada, and thereby air my opinion in criticizing euthanasia, since the disadvantages of the practice significantly outweighs the merits. Cons of Euthanasia Critics of physician induced suicide have put various valid arguments in campaigning against such a practice. For instance, such critics argue that the physician’s role is to preserve human life. This is evident by their signing of the Hippocratic Oath which compels them to input their learned skills and inborn capabilities in preserving the life of individuals (Prado, 2000). Besides, professional ethics considers the life of individuals to be sacred and as such, no one should be mandated to terminate it, under any circumstances. As such, I completely agree with such individuals opposing the process owing to these facts. Besides, in my perspective I believe the proposal for the legalization of euthanasia may have devastating effects in the long run. Individuals may misuse such practices and employ it to perpetrate selfish and ill-motives such as murder. This will reduce the reliability of various healthcare centers (Leming & Dickinson, 2010). Patients will perceive such health facilities as institutes of murder, instead of institutions that preserve and boost healthy life. Critics also reason that that no individual has the capability to predict the failure to recover in a patient and their ultimate demise. As such, physicians are tasked with the capability to preserve such lives. This is apparent, owing to the vast amounts of funds invested on technology and machinery to preserve life. Such opponents of euthanasia argue that instead of such acts, the patients should be placed under rehabilitation centers with the utmost hope of slowed recovery (Baylis, 2011). Additionally, assessment of patients for euthanasia is not clear. It is also difficult to appraise an individual to undergo such process as euthanasia, owing to their current health situation. This may result since individuals’ health tends to improve and deteriorate in a similar fashion during provision of healthcare services. As such, the physician may incorrectly assess the patients for euthanasia, thereby subjecting them to unwarranted deaths. It is also evident that some relatives may perpetrate mercy killing to a patient owing to their unjustifiable motives such as revenge and inheritance claims. Various forms of induced deaths may be applicable in this case and may include neglect and wrong assessment of patients for euthanasia. Additionally, patients who opt for a physician assisted suicide do not usually have a stable mind and may not possess the power to make informed judgments. Such ill-informed decisions may emanate from the fact that such individuals may be suffering from mental illnesses such as depression, owing to their current health conditions. As such, physicians, ought to consider other factors before yielding to such pressures of the patients as to carry out euthanasia. Perpetrating euthanasia on such patients is professionally, ethically and legally unacceptable. Various world religions have significant impacts on the welfares of diverse societal members. It is evident that numerous major world religions strongly object euthanasia, owing to the sacredness of life. Such religions hold to the fact that only the Supreme Deity has the mandate to terminate the lives of individuals under dissimilar circumstances. Besides, cases of individuals who believe in divine intervention receiving miraculous healing are evident. This serves to oppose such acts of euthanasia, since ‘miraculous treatment’ may occur, based on an individual’s perceived beliefs. As such, it would be demeaning the sacred human life by perpetrating assisted suicide to various patients perceived to be facing terminal illnesses (Northcott & Wilson, 2008). I completely agree with these critics, since the life of individuals is divine, and another human has no authority over it. Additionally, technological advancements continue to expand, thereby paving way for various improved processes that may serve significantly in preserving life. Additionally, though the act of own suicide is legal under the laws of Canada, assisted suicide is an illegitimate act and is punishable under the Canadian penal code. As such, physician aided suicide, will incriminate such physicians as well as other involved parties such as the relatives of the patients. This act will have detrimental impacts on the image of such health centers and the professional development of the patients (Northcott & Wilson, 2008). Such individuals may have to experience the penalty of utmost 14 years in prison in incidences where they are found guilty. As such, I believe that such laws should be strengthened to control such predicaments. Some unscrupulous physicians continue secretly to perform mercy killing to patients in secret. This critically dents the medicine profession and puts some individuals who may not be facing such terminal illnesses at risk. This is unethical and may compel patients have reduced reliability to the very individuals that they solely trust with their welfare in health matters. This may negatively impact the health situation of the general public, thereby giving rise to unhealthy members of a societal setting. Additionally, the relatives of a patient on the verge of euthanasia may develop critical psychological challenges. These relatives may feel responsible for the ultimate demise of their kin, though the patient may have eventually died. The psychological challenges resulting from euthanasia are extremely unbearable. Additionally, in nations where it is illegal to perpetrate euthanasia, the relatives may be compelled to undergo unwarranted legal proceedings. Proponents of Euthanasia As indicated, proponents of euthanasia may claim that the dignity of a patient ought to be upheld, thus the patients’ wish to have their life terminated to end excruciating suffering ought to be respected (Leming & Dickinson, 2010). As such, the patients or their kin may request the physician to terminate the patient’s life, while following the legal aspects of such acts. This results because individuals are capacitated by the human rights to make informed decisions regarding their lives. As such, it may look legally acceptable for such individuals suffering from unbearable pains as a result of diverse terminal illnesses to opt for a physician assisted suicide. In my opinion, the policymakers ought to abolish this, since it ignores the essence of the sanctity of human life, and a cure may be underway for various ailments. Besides, such supporters of physician assisted suicide may claim that it is in their endeavor to lessen the cumulative hospital costs that recur, even when there is no apparent sign of recovery from the patient. This will eliminate costly and otherwise unwarranted costs such as health costs and insurance premium costs (Baylis, 2011). Additionally, supporters of euthanasia may argue that such facilities used by those patients may be used by other patients on the verge of recovery. Some patients may also be willing to donate various vital organs that may be unaffected by their illnesses and this may be significant in saving the lives of other individuals, as per the wish of such patients. Besides, sustaining life hold-up systems against the wills of the patients may be unethical and illegitimate. However, in my opinion this seems unjustified since individuals ought to prioritize the human life over the material things, and doctors ought to employ their knowledge in their endeavor to preserve human life. While performing such induced deaths, the physicians have a critical task to determine the motives behind such willingness. For reasons such as aiding in dying instead of lengthened and painful death, proponents of such induced deaths claim that it should be viewed as legally and ethically acceptable. (Northcott & Wilson, 2008) Advocates of euthanasia also claim that induced deaths by family members owing to their selfish motives such as acquiring inheritance are unjustifiable. This may result from the fact that such individuals’ motives may be achieved through passive euthanasia, which is slow and more painful, as opposed to active mercy killing. However, since most induced deaths have resulted from the selfishness of the patients’ kin, it would be unjustified to subject individuals to such processes, owing to their malicious objectives. Example of Euthanasia Case Cases of physician aided suicide that resulted in legal redress in Canada are innumerable (Prado, 2000). Most perpetrators of euthanasia within Canada have been found guilty, thereby facing the full legal implications under the Canadian legal systems. This puts the health sector within Canada in jeopardy, since incarceration of physicians tasked with the objectives of preserving and improving the health of the patients significantly affects the professional development. Such an incident occurred when Gloria Taylor, suffering from a terminal illness known as ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) opted to seek legal redress regarding his wish for the termination of her life with the assistance of her physician. Her drive emanated from the fact that her condition gradually caused muscle paralysis, chronic pains, and the eventual death of the patient. The ailment does not impact on the cognitive of the patient, and may heighten the suffering of such patients, hence the rationale to consider euthanasia as an option to alleviate their sufferings. However, though the plaintiffs of such as case may argue that the law (Section 241) some rights of an individual, citing that such ailments may be irremediable, this may be unjustifiable, since medical inventions are still underway and a cure may be available, thereby alleviating such sufferings(Baylis, 2011). Opinion It is evident that though there are advocates and opponents of euthanasia, the arguments opposing euthanasia clearly outclass the ones supporting this process. Besides, in my perspective, it is clear that every argument supporting mercy killing has an equal or even stronger argument opposing it. For instance, arguments proposing the process from the mere fact alleviates suffering for terminally ill patients receive a counter, owing to the sanctity of human life, which the physicians ought to preserve. Another argument that it will save the resources of the family and the hospital is countered by the fact that there may be ill motives behind the perpetration of the process. Technology advancements and scientific research also continue to disapprove the process, since some ailments that the physicians considered to be terminal gradually continue to receive treatment. As such, in my opinion the Canadian policymakers ought to abolish euthanasia, and revise the implemented policies regarding euthanasia, thereby improving such laws that deter such a practice. Conclusion Physician assisted suicide is a contentious issue that continue to elicit diverse reactions from its proponents as well as is opponents. As such, various proponents and critics endeavor to relentlessly to support their evidence regarding the issue. The claims of alleviation of suffering and reductions of healthcare costs, the right of the patients are among the key arguments of the proponents of this process. Conversely, the opponents of euthanasia cite various arguments that include the sanctity of life, religious beliefs and the ill motives as some of the key campaigns against euthanasia. Additionally, various legal litigation concerning the topic continue to be experienced in within Canada and globally, with numerous individuals citing evidence for their actions regarding the issue. However, on the eve of technological and scientific advancement, numerous terminal ailments continue to receive cure, thereby eliminating the need for euthanasia. I believe that banning of euthanasia will continue to receive ethical, as well as legal implications, as I see this as a contentious issue in the modern day that will continue to elicit varied opinions from different people. References Baylis, F. (2011). Health Care Ethics in Canada. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Leming, M., & Dickinson, G. (2010). Understanding Dying, Death, and Bereavement. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Northcott, H., & Wilson, D. (2008). Dying and Death in Canada G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Prado, C. (2000). Assisted suicide: Canadian perspectives. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Read More