Euthanasia

Euthanasia and assisted suicide is prohibited by law in almost every nation in the world. Changing the legal status of euthanasia in Canada would represent a major social policy shift. Advances in medical; science in the recent past have altered the character of the debate on suicide. Physicians have an increased ability to care for diseases and to lengthen life, which causes the national government to take a more active role in the issue of life and death in the health framework.
Advances in medical science in the early part of the 19th century complicated the strict adherence to religious teaching. By the beginning of the 19th century, physicians were engaged in the euthanasia debate. The theologians and philosophers joined the debate in which much of the dissertations focused on the quality of life. The contentious issue is the right to decide when the quality of life has depreciated past the point where terminating life is tolerable (Mwaria, 1996).
In North America, the most determining case in the issue of value of life and euthanasia is the case of Karen Ann Quinlan. Karen was 21 years when she suffered permanent brain damage induced by the over consumption of alcohol and drugs. She when into a coma requiring life support machines to continue living. Her parents signed a release form authorizing the physician to discontinue the use of a respiratory; however, the hospital refused. The parents proceeded to court and following the ruling of the court, the respirator was disconnected in 1976. Karen spent 10 years of her life in a coma under the care of nurses in a nursing home. She was fed through tubes. Other high-profile cases involve women suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). ASL cause muscle deterioration, which is accompanied by pain without affecting the cognitive functions (Kure, 2011). The case of Gloria Taylor who was suffering from ALS represents key developments in the euthanasia laws in Canada.
The available medical technology can significantly prolong the life of patients; however, the quality of life deteriorates progressively. Many Canadians are giving active contemplation to the confines they will place to their own health management or that of a family member. The high cost of health care is an additional pertinent concern. Current research indicates that most people incur the highest health care cost during the concluding days of living. There exist a fragile balance involving supporting life and restraining the healthcare cost (Mwaria, 1996). This will, especially be more apparent as the large populations in Canada move into older age groups, in which the cost of healthcare is significantly high.
Many reasons are put forth in favor of the legalization of euthanasia. The concerns for the personal autonomy are perhaps the most common because it concerns the freedom of choice for the individual. Those who support the personal approach argument include Gloria Taylor who argues it should be her decision to receive physician assistance to end her life at a time of her choosing. It is her constitutional right to decide when the prospect of continued living is worse than the prospect of accelerated death. The philosophical defense of this argument claims that individual autonomous choices should not be infringed but for proportionately demanding reasons. Palliative care is relatively ineffective in relieving pain and suffering, especially in the final days of life. The law violates the rights and freedoms of those with physical disability as outlined in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The law allows healthy people to commit suicide; however, those with corporeal limitations cannot commit suicide (Golden & Zoanni, 2010).
The proponents of legalizing euthanasia argue that aided suicide still occurs in Canada notwithstanding its illegality. There is also no moral significance between acts and omissions. Withdrawing treatment is an accepted practice whereas assisted suicide is illegal is hypocrisy because the two lack any significant moral difference. The Tracy case of 1993 is perhaps the most famous euthanasia case in Canada. The father, Robert Latimer killed her by suffocation by placing her in a motor vehicle and channeling exhaust into the drivers cabin. Tracy was suffering from cerebral palsy, a condition that left her unable to walk, talk, or feed herself. Her father ended her life because he could not bear to see his daughter continue suffering. Because of his actions, Latimer faced a first-degree murder charge but was condemned for second-degree murder. Second-degree murder carries a penalty of life in reformatory without prospect of parole in the first 10 years. A series of appeals followed; however, the court finally upheld its decision. In 2010 November, the Appeal division of the National Parole Board granted him full parole (Montero, 2011).
The difference between individual differences in terms of religion and moral perspectives has led to a heated debate. Those who identify closely with religion oppose physician-assisted suicide (PAS) for either their family members or themselves. Catholics and conservative Christians consider active euthanasia as more acceptable, especially when the physician plays a more active role. Those opposing PAS argue that only a complete ban on PAS is adequate to protect the vulnerable in society. A complete ban on PAS will also preserve the high value the society places on human life. The argument is that no set of safeguards is sufficient to protect the vulnerable groups and prevent serious harm. Some feminist scholars express concern that women are socialized as care gives thus may feel the need to exercise the right to die sooner than men because they are socialized differently. The argument put forth by the scholars overlooks the nature of the Canadian society (Golden & Zoanni, 2010). The Canadian society is highly individualistic; therefore the right to PAS should never be posited as an obligation.
Those against the legalization of PAS in Canada rest their fears on the view that legalized PAS would lead to abusive or mistaken killings of the vulnerable in the society. However, the available empirical evidence does not support such a view. The legitimate concerns raised by those against PAS have been addressed by regulatory regimes in countries that have legalized PAS. The safeguards in the regulatory regimes are sufficient to meet the concerns of the critics. There is no guarantee that mistakes will not happen with the legalization of PAS; however, whenever a mistake happens, it is to be deplored. Complete prohibition of PAS in Canada is producing similar if not more abusive deaths than legal PAS could ever produce (Kure, 2011).
 References
Golden, M. and Zoanni, T. (2010). Killing us softly: the dangers of legalizing assisted suicide. Disability and Health Journal, 3, 16-30.
Kure, J. (2011). Everything Under Control: How and When to Die - A Critical Analysis of the Arguments for Euthanasia, Euthanasia - The "Good Death" Controversy in Humans and Animals, Prof. Josef Kure (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-260-9.
Montero, M. D. (2011). End-of-Life Issues in the United States after Terri Schiavo: Implications for Social Work Practice. Advances in Social Work, 12(2), 164-180.
Mwaria, C. (1996). Physician-Assisted Suicide: An Anthropological Perspective. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 24(4), 859-868