Euthanasia

Stephanie Rasic
Mr. Ozimok
HSB4M
June 16, 2013

Euthanasia

Euthanasia, or doctor assisted suicide, has been subject of controversy in North America for a number of decades. Prior to the argument of whether or not euthanasia should be legalized for the terminally ill, it is important to differentiate between the two types of doctor assisted suicide. Passive euthanasia is withholding treatment necessary for ones health and allowing nature to take its course. Active euthanasia, the most controversial of the two, is the use of forces, such as lethal injections that will directly result in death. With that being said, doctor assisted suicide should be legalized for the terminally ill. It is within a persons own choice whether they wish to live or die, if they decide there is no longer a quality of life, they should be allowed the choice. If consent is given from the patient as well as next of kin, there should not be an issue with fulfilling ones dying wish. Finally, when one is terminally ill, it is inevitable that the disease will deteriorate at the physical health, and eventually they will die. If one decides they do not wish to suffer, and wish to die with dignity, that should be an option. Euthanasia is controversial for a number of reasons, however, if boundaries and restrictions are negotiated, it is possible to better accommodate the wishes of patients who are suffering an inevitable death.

North Americans are consistently told throughout life that they have the freedom of choice. People living in North America are allowed the freedom of their jobs, religion, and even sexual preference. In a society so adamant about establishing freedom for all, it only makes sense for the terminally ill to be given freedom to do with their lives as they please. If one believes there is no longer a quality of life they wish to sustain, they should have an option to be peacefully laid to rest. "Mercy killing" is another term for euthanasia, the definition of the word mercy is "compassionate treatment", the word "compassion" means sympathetic and tender-hearted. Euthanasia is a sympathetic and tender hearted gesture to put a patient who is terminally ill out of suffering. In 1992, Sue Rodriguez, a resident of British Columbia made headlines as she fought for her right to a dignified death. The 41 year old mother, who was diagnosed with ALS or "Lou Gehrig's disease" made her dying wishes very clear. Sue Rodriguez wished to spend her last lucid and capable moments with her child, however, she expressed that when she began deteriorating and was confined to a hospital bed, she did not want to sit and suffer. Unfortunately, in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, Sue Rodriguez was denied her right to die. Despite the unfortunate loss Sue Rodriguez faced at the Supreme Court, this became a landmark case for the controversy surrounding euthanasia. The Supreme Court is the only force standing in the way of legalizing euthanasia, and questions are raised as to why the Supreme Court is so resistant of this change. In a society where freedom is constantly expressed, the freedom for one to die a dignified death should be legal. Especially when the individual in question is already suffering from an inevitable death. Apparently, this is a society that is full of freedom and opportunity for the people who live in it, unless one is diagnosed with an incurable and painful disease. In Canada, there are no laws against suicide for many reasons, however assisted suicide is punishable for up to 14 years. However, it is the exact same thing. It is an individual who wishes to die, they are just not physically able to commit suicide because of their illness. This society needs to do major re evaluating on the subject of doctor assisted suicide, it will only help a suffering individual prior to the disease becoming more and more painful.

When one is diagnosed with a terminal illness, it is not only devastating for the individual, but for the individuals family as well. Though it is very shocking and upsetting for the individual and their family, when one is diagnosed with a terminal illness, death is already accepted. A terminal illness means "a malignant disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient in a short period of time." With that being said, it is quite obvious that when one is diagnosed with a terminal illness, death has already been accepted by the individual and their family. If one decides they do not wish to be confined to a hospital bed in suffering until they die, the option of active euthanasia should be available. As of right now, passive euthanasia is legal. The problem with passive euthanasia being legal is that it is often much more painful to the patient than active euthanasia would be. Something such as turning off a machine that helps the patient breathe is extremely painful for the patient, and they could be in this pain for several minutes, even hours. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to opt to legalize the more painful method of something that gives the patient the same result. Many argue that euthanasia is "murder", while this is understandable in its own right, however, under the circumstances this option should be available. The only strong arguments against the legalization of euthanasia are the ethical issues surrounding it. Yes, it does involve a physician putting a patient to death. A patient who is suffering, who is slowly dying a painful death. We see forms of euthanasia everyday in veterinarian clinics. When an animal becomes too old or too sick, they are put to death. Not because the owner does not wish to deal with a dying animal, but because the owner sees their pet is suffering, and they know there is a way to prevent the suffering. When a terminally ill patient seeks doctor assisted suicide, their family is almost always on their side for the decision. However Supreme Court judges, strangers to the patient and their family, are making the decisions for them. In 2009, bill c-384, which would have legalized euthanasia was thrown out by a losing vote of approximately 150. The Canadian Supreme Court is very resistant of change. Many believe this is because they do not wish to be criticized if a change is made. However, euthanasia would just be an option, not a requirement for the terminally ill. It is devastating for someone who has been diagnosed with an incurable disease, yet many are not given the option to end their suffering. The fact that strangers are creating these decisions for patients is completely absurd. This is not their family, they do not know what decision is in the patients best interest. The patients deserve this option when what they are facing is already hard enough, and their voice is not heard, it is completely tragic. With the consent of the patient as well as their family members, there is absolutely no reason that euthanasia should not be an option that is available.

There are many reasons why doctor assisted suicide should be legal in Canada. Apart from the fact that it would help a patient who is experiencing a slow and painful death, it would also help healthcare. The hospitals are spending large amounts of money keeping patients alive who are inevitably facing death. Many of these patients wish they could have the option of doctor assisted suicide, it does not make sense as to why they are not allowed this option. If given this option, the dying patient and their family gets their wish fulfilled and the hospital saves money that they would have spent on the healthcare of said individual. It is a "win-win" situation, however, at the moment the laws restricting euthanasia are still standing. A dying patient wishes to die with dignity. While they are still coherent, this way they have the ability to say goodbye to their family, and to die the way they will always be remembered. Without the legalization of euthanasia, they do not get this option. A terminal illness often deteriorates the health of the patient to the point where they are incoherent or even comatose. They do not get to say goodbye to their family on their dying days, and they are not the same person they were when they were healthy. That is quite possibly the most devastating of all; that a dying patient who could potentially die peacefully, the way they want to, is denied this right.
"Supporters of euthanasia state that everyone should have the same degree of control in choosing the circumstances surrounding their death as they do in choosing the manner in which they live." (Economist.com, 1997). This quotation really does express the point that euthanasia is a personal decision based on the way one who is terminally ill wishes to spend the remainder of their life. Doctors have the power to create life, yet it is viewed as morally unacceptable for them to have the power to put an end to someones life who is suffering. Society must change their views on what is morally acceptable and what is not, because if one is suffering from a disease that will deteriorate their health until they die, they should be allowed the option of getting out prior to the suffering, prior to them becoming comatose or incoherent.

In conclusion, active euthanasia should be legalized for the terminally ill. When one is diagnosed with a disease that is sure to result in death, with no cure, they should be allowed the right to a dignified death. Like stated above, an individual deserves to have control in the circumstances surrounding their death, especially because in this society, it is always expressed how wonderful it is that so much freedom is available. The cold hard truth is, nobody should have the right to decide somebody else's fate. The individual suffering from the disease should be the only one who has any say in what they wish to do with their life. The people who are the decision makers regarding the law on euthanasia do not have to deal with a terminal illness. They do not feel the constant pain and suffering involving an incurable disease. When death has already been accepted by the individual and their family, and it is their wish to be put out of their suffering, this should absolutely be available for them. There is just so much that would be positive if euthanasia was legalized. Especially because it would just be an option, not a requirement. It would help the individuals and families who would like that option, and it would help the hospitals save money. Eventually, society will begin to accept that it cannot decide fate. For now, the debate on the euthanasia has been lost, however, it only takes the effort of one to change it. It is undeniable that the voices of terminally ill patients will soon be heard.