The accepted by a large percent of the

 The touchiest topic that is
being talked about in today’s time, both morally and legally, is assisted
suicide, sometimes known as bill c-14. Assisted suicide is helping along a person
to an easier death (i.e. giving a person an amount of pain killers to help
death). Many people in Canada are Living in a vegetative state, with no help or
recovery in the future. Living in constant pain and agony is a terrible way to
die as the pain can go on for years without relief. Terminal illnesses corrupts
the well-being of not only the person with it, but also their loved ones.

So many Canadians are
against the use of euthanasia. While Christianity plays a large role in the dispute
of euthanasia, the main reason of their opposition is the fact that an old or financial
unstable person may be pressured into choosing euthanasia by penny pinching
family members or the person’s physician. They feel that an exploitation of a
euthanasia system is inevitable. However, these abuses and exploitations can be
prevented through a strict regulatory system.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The Canadian support of
active euthanasia has been seen in organizations all over the world. In
a nation-wide Gallup poll in April, results showed that “a majority of seventy
five percent of all Americans allowing doctors to end the lives of the
terminally ill’ (Van Biema 60). In fact, studies show that one fifth of all
doctors have actively helped to end a patient’s life (Van Biema 61). Presently envision what number of different specialists
inactively finished the life of a patient, or what number of specialists did
not take the review or were excessively anxious, making it impossible to
confess to aiding in the demise of a patient. A euthanasia system in our country would
be accepted by a large percent of the population and would also be accepted by
many doctors as well.

Physio helped death is not only used in
North America. A few different countries have gotten unique systems of euthanasia.

In the Netherlands for example, suicide is highly regulated but it is common;
last year there were 1000 cases in which a life was terminated without a
specific request (Van Biema 61). However, this can be rectified by instituting
stricter laws governing the cases in which a person may request assisted
termination of their life. In Australia, a law was passed in 1995 that permits
active euthanasia in 1999, once certain other laws are passed (OCRT 5). In
Holland, euthanasia is illegal, but doctors cannot be prosecuted for ending a
patient’s life if the patient is in intolerable pain, if the patient has
repeatedly asked to die, if two doctors agree on the procedure, and if the
relatives of the patient are consulted (OCRT 6). In Japan, mercy killing is
legal if the patient is suffering in unbearable physical pain, if death is
inevitable and imminent, if all possible measures have been exhausted to
eliminate the pain, and if the patient has clearly expressed their will to approve
the hastening of their death (OCRT 6). While these systems do have their
problems, the United States can learn from these problems to make a better
active euthanasia system in which there are few to no abuses of the system.

The world views euthanasia in all different ways. These views are influenced
highly by religion, but also by culture and tradition. In a poll held in the
United States, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia, the result were very
varied. According to this poll, sixty percent of all Americans support
euthanasia, along with seventy four percent of all Canadians, eighty percent of
the British, and eighty one percent of all Australians (OCRT 4). Many countries
have euthanasia systems. And if a majority of Americans support euthanasia, then
our countries should also implement a system of assisted suicide.

Many courts in our country seem to be for active euthanasia. An appeals court
ruled that a patient who is terminally ill and mentally competent has the right
to receive lethal drugs from a doctor to hasten death (Klaidman 62). The ninth
circuit court in San Francisco ruled that assisted suicide is a right protected
by the fourteenth Amendment’s due process but the state needs compelling
reasons to deprive someone of the right to life, liberty, or property (Klaidman
62). The crime of assisted suicide is rarely prosecuted. The issue of risk is brought
regularly up in situations where a nearby relative or a restorative expert
enables an in critical condition individual to take their own particular life.

Unless there is evidence that there is an inside thought process included
(i.e. financial), the judicial system normally is reluctant to undertake
criminal proceedings against a relative or loved one who may have assisted in a
person’s death (Flanders 5).

The Supreme Court has set
up the privileges of a man to bite the dust by the expulsion of life bolster
gear, however not by coordinate mediation. Rather than biting the dust gently,
the individual must starve or get dried out (on account of evacuating of a
nourishing tube). What’s more, by giving a man a chance to get dried out or
starve, you are putting this individual through more torment, when all the
patient needed was a conclusion to their torment. Along these lines, the in
critical condition must pay a cost for being put out of misery they should
experience the agony of not having a taste of water for up to two days. This
abuses the eighth amendment, which avoids merciless and strange discipline. A
dynamic willful extermination framework would keep this expanded torment before

Be that as it may,
shouldn’t something be said about those in trance like states and lasting
vegetative states, or the individuals who are not rationally skillful but
rather still in critical condition? Don’t these individuals merit the privilege
to bite the dust too? An affiliation called the Surviving Family Members in
Support of Physician Assisted Dying went up against this test. They proposed
the inquiry “How ‘regular’ is it to kick the bucket of shakings and
dementia? Similarly, how ‘natural’ is death by starvation and
dehydration, or an induced coma, both of which are legal in Washington and New
York states? The Second Circuit courts concluded that these deaths are no more
‘natural’ than a doctor prescribing medication to expedite death (Times
The story of Nancy Cruzan is a tragic one. She was injured in a car accident,
and was not near death, but her family is convinced that she would not have
wanted to live in her present vegetative state. Ms. Cruzan had “lain so
still for so long that her hand had curled into claws; nurses wedged napkins
under her fingers to prevent the nails from piercing her wrists” (Long
55). The family had been fighting with courts to remove the feeding tube from
her stomach. Finally, in the case of Cruzan vs. Missouri Dept. of Health in
1990, the courts allowed the feeding tube to be removed and Cruzan died. Be that as it may, shouldn’t
something be said about those in trance like states and lasting vegetative
states, or the individuals who are not rationally skillful but rather still in
critical condition? Don’t these individuals merit the privilege to bite the
dust too? An affiliation called the Surviving Family Members in Support of
Physician Assisted Dying went up against this test. They proposed the inquiry
“How ‘regular’ is it to kick the bucket of shakings and dementia?
One of the most profound euthanasia cases is that of a patient of Howard
Caplan, a doctor of geriatrics in Los Angeles, California. His patient had
burst an aneurysm and later had an astrocytoma removed from her brain. She went
on in a vegetative state. Then, in a cruel twist of fate, her skin broke out in
sores all over her body and her bladder, which required her to have a catheter
inserted. Her husband begged the doctor to remove the feeding tube from her
nose. The doctor refused, saying that he would rather give her a lethal dose of
a medicine than let her starve to death (Bernards 90). If there was an active
euthanasia system in this country, this woman and her husband would not be
having to go through all of this pain. Why should this person have to live in a
permanent sleep- an existence halfway between life and death?

Peter Cinque was a forty-one year old man dying in Freeport, Long Island. He
was kept alive by a continuously operating kidney dialysis machine. He was
blind, lost both legs, and suffered from ulcers and cardiovascular problems as
well. Before asking doctors to stop treating him so he could die, he consulted
several priests who convinced him that it did not violate Roman Catholic
Doctrine. He believed that as a conscious, rational adult, he had the right to
determine what should or should not be done to his body. The hospital sent two
psychiatrists to test his competence before they could consider his request.

Mr. Cinque signed the necessary legal forms, but this did not stop his agony.

The hospital lawyers got the State Supreme Court to require Mr. Cinque to continue
with the dialysis treatment. About a week later, Mr. Cinque stopped breathing,
and suffered irreversible brain damage. He was now in a coma and unable to
follow through with his request to die, but the hospital used the papers he
signed to get the court to allow treatment to be discontinued. Peter Cinque
soon died, and was thus put out of his misery (Bernards 61).

Another valid argument in favor of assisted suicide is the fact that while
assisting a person in committing suicide is illegal, providing them with
information on how to commit suicide is not (Flanders 41). Many books have been
written (one by Jack Kevorkian) on the subject of suicide methodology. What’s more, know with the
expanding prominence of the web, techniques on the best way to submit suicide
is promptly accessible to anybody with a modem. The contention is that if a man
can be advised how to confer suicide, at that point for what reason can’t that
same be individual be supported in submitting suicide. A shrewd man once said
“Learning is control.” By giving individuals the information on the
best way to submit suicide, aren’t we enabling them to confer suicide. Giving
somebody the information to end their own particular lives is helping them to
end their own particular lives, which is the thing that helped suicide is.

Their passing may not arrive in a jug of pills or a stacked weapon, yet on
bound sheets of paper or a PC screen.??A living will might be a conceivable answer for the issue
that emerges when a man who has turned out to be not able settle on the choice
of regardless of whether they need to bite the dust should they turn out to be
in critical condition or fall into a vegetative state. Be that as it may, it is
almost difficult to cover all potential outcomes in which a man can’t settle on
the choice of regardless of whether to pass on without anyone else’s input.

Another drawback to the living will is that a man may change their perspectives
or needs between the time that the will is composed and the time that the
individual turns out to be sick. Be that as it may, the living will can
forestall abuse of a killing framework by legal counselors, specialists, and
friends and family who are against euthanasia or who do not want the person to
(Bernards 176).

The principle of mercy establishes two component duties for a doctor to uphold.

The first of these principles is that a doctor must not cause further pain and
suffering to a patient. The second principle is that a doctor must act and do
all possible to end pain and suffering already occurring (Bernards 19). These
two principles are two of the most basic principles of assisted suicide. By not
hastening the death of a patient, the doctor is not only leaving his or her
patient in pain but possibly increasing the pain. By killing the patient, the
doctor is ending the agony that a patient is going through.

An idea for a system for active euthanasia would be through a system of living
wills, committees, and next of kin decisions. The first stage in the euthanasia
system should be the living wills. These should whether to figure out wither or
not if  a person has the right to death
has become if unable to make the decision themselves. For those who do not have
a living will, or do but are mentally competent, a committee should first be
used to determine the person’s mental competence, then to rule whether or not
the person should be allowed to have a doctor end their lives. This decision
should be based on several factors. The most important influence should that
all measures to cure the illness or end the pain have been exhausted, followed
closely by the person’s asking to die or having asked to die. The final factor
should be the will of family members or close friends. This should not be an
important factor in order to prevent cost-conscious loved ones from ending the
life of the patient just to end their financial burden. Ultimately, and in
best-case scenarios, the decisions to die should be up to the patient to make.

Otherwise, the line separating America, the free nation where a person can die
with dignity, and Nazi Germany, a society in which hundreds of Jews are forced
to commit suicide, become blurred.


with opposing forces are strong or the misuse of the euthanasia system,
assisted suicide is a beneficial act that may help end the chronic pain of many
people with incurable illnesses. With the many recent laws being concerted,
decision of next of kin, wills and real-estate will be made under pressure with
many hurt in the process, the end result will be a society where a person will
not have to exist in intolerable pain if they should fall terminally ill. People
should be able to go out with some dignity and pride. By revoking a individual of
a peaceful death and wreaking the hope for a better life, we neglect ourselves
of our own humanity.