Currently, there is a continuous discussion surrounding euthanasia in society and politics. The government is reluctant to address the moral and ethical aspects of this topic. However, cases such as Sue Rodriguez and Robert Latimer have brought more attention to euthanasia through media coverage. Finding a solution for this issue is difficult, despite some progress being made. The government has established legal penalties for assisted suicide in the Criminal Code, making euthanasia unquestionably illegal in Canada. Nevertheless, an increasing number of people are choosing doctor-assisted suicide.
Although politicians and the courts resist, claiming the nation is ill-prepared, euthanasia has become widely accepted in certain scenarios due to the increasing liberal political environment. Nevertheless, opponents of euthanasia frequently misinterpret pro-euthanasia advocates’ intentions by labeling them as selfish and disregarding their belief in self-dignity, personal choice, economic well-being, happiness, family support, and individual rights.
Euthanasia, whether performed actively or passively, involves deliberately causing death. Advocates of euthanasia frequently employ more optimistic phrases like “right to die” and “death with dignity”. Passive euthanasia specifically entails ceasing futile treatment that merely extends a person’s dying period. It is essential to distinguish this from halting necessary treatment that sustains their life, as such action would lead to their demise.
The pro-life lobby’s unity and credibility may be compromised if certain individuals insist on using all available technological resources to prolong life. However, no ethical doctor pressures patients or their families into accepting burdensome, ineffective, or futile measures, known as ‘disproportionate’ interventions. In situations where patients or families decline such measures, doctors are obliged to discontinue curative or therapeutic efforts when death becomes imminent and unavoidable.
Patients have the choice to request all available actions, but it should not be assumed that life will always be extended as much as possible, as this could promote the “right to die” movement. Acknowledging the inherent boundaries of self-governance involves accepting death when a patient explicitly declines further treatment. However, this does not extend to rejecting essential care and does not imply eliminating measures for comfort. A 1991 report from the BC Royal Commission stressed that individuals approaching death should possess the freedom to determine how and when they die…
The Right to Die Society in Canada emphasizes the importance of acknowledging individuals’ right to choose suicide and physicians’ role in assisting them. The Society advocates for mature individuals who are chronically or terminally ill to have control over the timing, location, and manner of their own death. They consider suicide and euthanasia as legitimate choices for those facing a diminished quality of life due to aging, accidents, or congenital disabilities.
This society supports and offers counseling for active euthanasia, also known as assistance-in-dying. The Canadian Medical Association has published articles on this topic, with Eike Kluge, the former ethics expert for the CMA, openly expressing support for it. In a recent discussion article, it was pointed out that animals receive more kindness than humans do. Dr. Arthur Parsons, Chairman of the Ethics Committee, raised the question of who should be prioritized in a lifeboat scenario.
Should we prioritize resources towards bypass surgery for a father of four or keep a severely retarded person alive? These questions raise two important considerations. Firstly, euthanasia for animals is often referred to as “putting to sleep,” sparking ongoing debate on this practice. Secondly, the financial aspect is relevant as research indicates high costs of care during the last six months of a patient’s life. This burden becomes unbearable for both the patient and their family, particularly in seemingly hopeless cases.
Patients in the final stages of life should not have to worry about the financial burden of healthcare expenses. Dr. Parsons argues that it may be wiser to prioritize limited healthcare funds for a father of four who requires surgery, as the chances of a positive outcome are much higher compared to someone comatose or facing terminal illness. Supporters of euthanasia acknowledge the difficulties in promoting it as a legislative measure and instead advocate for assisted suicide as a means to eventually legalize active euthanasia.
Svend Robinson has introduced Bill C385, which seeks to alter the Criminal Code to permit doctors to aid in the assisted suicide of terminally ill patients who desire it. Canada decriminalized suicide in 1972, recognizing that individuals who attempt suicide require assistance rather than incarceration. The BC Commission on health care costs emphasized that suicide is a fundamental right and recommended that physicians be authorized to support patients who opt for this choice.
Section 241 of the Criminal Code currently criminalizes the act of advising or aiding someone in committing suicide. Simultaneously, Section 14 stipulates that individuals cannot provide consent for another person to cause their death. These legislations aim to safeguard vulnerable individuals who may be easily swayed and prone to coercion. They also acknowledge that suicide is not a rational choice but rather a consequence of feelings of despair and hopelessness. Merely because something is not prohibited by law does not automatically make it a fundamental entitlement. In simpler terms, if you have the right to terminate your own life, I am obliged to assist you in doing so.
Justice Melvin ruled in the Sue Rodriguez case that there is no requirement to criminalize aiding suicide. Sue Rodriguez, a 42-year-old woman with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), took her challenge against the criminalization of assisted suicide to the Supreme Court of Canada. In September 1992, The Globe and Mail published an extensive article by John Hofsess, director of the right to Die Society, which depicts her battle with this degenerative disease as being “condemned to die.”
The text describes the future of a person as being “helpless, drooling, physically atrophied captive of this disease, dependent on other people and machines for an ever attenuated form of mere biological existence.” The person’s lawyers argued that Section 241 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits assisting anyone in committing suicide, violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights. Section 7 guarantees liberty and security of the person. The Justices emphasized the significant distinction between palliative care and physician-assisted suicide. They stated that Rodriguez did not demonstrate how her right to fundamental justice is violated by the current criminal law.
According to Barney Sneiderman, a law professor at the University of Manitoba, charges are infrequently brought forth due to the Crown’s acknowledgement that juries typically empathize with doctors who help end the suffering of terminally ill patients. Certain doctors worry that even offering patients the tools to commit suicide, such as prescribing a surplus of pills that could potentially be saved and utilized for an overdose, may be considered assisting or encouraging euthanasia. However, Sneiderman asserts that the courts would probably demand prosecutors to demonstrate intent.
An Edmonton doctor is facing charges of hoarding pills. However, the doctor may have a strong defense since the pills were not prescribed for the purpose of aiding a suicide. The charges were made under Section 217, which states that failing to perform a certain act could endanger someone’s life. On the other hand, Section 219 defines criminal negligence and includes both actions and omissions that could put others at risk. Justices Proudfoot and Hollinrake agreed with Justice McEarchern, who was the only dissenter, stating that Parliament should decide on the matter of physician-assisted suicide.
