In 1992, Sue Rodriguez forced the right-to-die debate into the spotlight in Canada.
In a video statement played to members of Parliament, the Victoria woman, diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 1991, asked legislators to change the law banning assisted suicide.
"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?" she said.
Do you think Canadian Parliament should change the law banning assisted suicide? How would you respond to the questions posed by Sue Rodriguez?
This is a touchy subject, but I personally believe that if a person wants to die - and if they have an extremely good reason (not some suicidal teenage kid), then they should get what they want. Rights to Freedom, right?
ReplyDeleteFor example. If I was laying on a bed, with cancer, or in extreme pain that would never go away - or if I was deaf, blind, and couldn't walk - would I really want to live? No. Would I have the guts to kill myself? Probably not. Would I ask someone to put me out of my misery? Probably. Then I find out that if they do, even if I sign a document saying I allowed it - they would be in trouble. In my opinion - that's bullcrap.
What on earth is unethical about take ones own life?
ReplyDeleteI can only give you an example, that hopefully illustrates my very, very adamant view on this.
Imagine being told you have terminal cancer. There is no chance for you to recover. None at all. Imagine being told you had three months to live, and by the last two weeks, you will spend your dying days on a hospital bed, stuck inside, having to watch your family witness you wasting away in the shell of a body you once had. Knowing, that the hospital bed you're dying on could have been used for a patient that got turned away, who could have lived.
Now, envision that assisted suicide was available and legal. Imagine, being still mobile, and still totally there, and still being able to pull yourself out of bed. Now, you're about to hit those two weeks. You've lived out what life you had. You've done your dreams. Imagine, being able to say good bye to your family, and have them all give their last wishes, and hold their hands and hug them. Imagine being given a cup of liquid. Tastes like fruit punch. You're getting sleepy now, you say a final prayer and wave your family goodbye. Tell them you love them. Smile. You're now in the beyond.
It is your body. It is your choice.
What if you had an awful accident, became immobile, stuck in a vegetable of a body. An empty shell. Keeping you alive is simply so that you're family can sleep at night. It's selfish of them to want you here, if you want to go.
What if you know a painful, hard death is on the way. What if you know you can't afford senior care, and know you're ready for what's next.
No one is forcing you to commit to assisted suicide. No. One. It is your choice, why should anyone dictate it?
Also, those who really want to die, will find other ways to. They'll kill themselves in a far less safe, far less fail proof environment.
The only logical argument against A.S. is religious. What about those who aren't? If you don't believe you should do it because of God, then don't do it. I have spoken to a priest about this topic myself, and he says it is a sin against God, however all sins are equal. So teasing your brother when you were young, is on the same scale as killing yourself when you are old. So why not crack down on teasing? Or those who say the Lord's name in vain? Why not demand that the world remove it from the dictionary? That anyone in the world not say it?
Don't treat these sins differently, let people make their own choices.
Assisted suicide should be legal, for everyone.
^^^^This.
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree with this.
And about the religion - the bible states that God forgives ALL sins - no matter the severity. So basically...yeah. You get the point.
ReplyDeleteI repeat. Someone who says, JESUS CHRIST! twice a day, commits twice the sin than someone killing themselves in the hosptial.
ReplyDelete^Exactly. And look at most, if not all, teenagers in today's society. They swear at least 5-10 times a day. I know I do. So 10 sins a day.
ReplyDeleteI think one more sin is not going to kill me.
No pun intended.
ReplyDelete:p
ReplyDeleteanyways, I have some more points on those who wish to rebutt.
Those who are depressed, and wish for A.S. they should go through an intensive counselling course and medicine treatment to explain that they have other options. And help them make a final choice.
Make living wills a necessity when youre eighteen. So if you become a shell, the will dictates whether you want the family to pull the plug or not.
And example from an anti- A.S. site is this:
"Example 1: an elderly person in a nursing home, who can barely understand a breakfast menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. Is this voluntary or involuntary? Will they be protected by the law? How? Right now the overall prohibition on killing stands in the way. Once one signature can sign away a person's life, what can be as strong a protection as the current absolute prohibition on direct killing? Answer: nothing."
If she cannot understand a breakfast menu, she should not be given a form. And if she had a living will, she could dictate that she is vehemently against A.S. or that she wishes to be killed at ______ point in time. Or when she can no longer ____________. A living will doesn't always dictate death. http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/willtolive/index.html is an option.
Also, instead of terminal, I'd like to use the term 'hopelessly ill'. more correct.
and those who think it is death without care for life, I'd argue that it's a dignified death.
Totally agree, once again.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is depressed and they wish to end there life - they should have the right to go to therapy before they would do something that maybe, could have been prevented. The only sad thing is, not everyone can afford the therapy cost. I believe it should be included in our healthcare. But it isn't.
Take this for example - I lost a friend two years ago to suicide. He was only 16. Did he have a good reason to be depressed? Sure. Did he have a reason to kill himself? In his mind he did - but everyone else thinks otherwise. What would I have done in his situation? Probably the same thing as he. This is why therapy should be...free.
As for your other statement - I can't agrue with it. I agree. 100%.
i completely agree with both of you, but look at the original question. we are not discussing suicide, but ASSISTED suicide. Most courts would deem that murder. To play the devil's advocate, let me say this:
ReplyDeleteif one was to ask you for help in their suicide, how would you know that they are in their right mind? even "some suicidal teenager" should have the right to end their life if they wish it, but it is not something that someone else should help you with. One can never be sure that death is the right option for the other person.
So i say that unless that person's death is inevitable, assisted suicide is unethical.
This is a very tough topic.
ReplyDeleteI think that assisted suicide should be allowed, but only under medical conditions, and only if a lot of paperwork was involved with it.
I don't think that it is right to have somebody help you end your own life unless you are terminally ill and there is no other way of escaping a slow and painful death. If a person wants to die, then it's their choice, but I think it's wrong to commit suicide if you don't have a serious medical issue.
I know a lot of families who have been torn apart because one of them has commited suicide and it must be very hard to cope with.
I have to say that if a person wants to die it is their choice, but many people have the determination for all the wrong reasons nowadays. People are committing suicide if they lose their job or if they are dumped by their girlfriend. If a person wishes to commit suicide then they should only do so if they are suffering from things such as depression or an incurable disease with no hope for a cure.
ReplyDeleteIt might be better to have a screening process and clinics where one undergoes screening and selection for euthenasia, and have people go there.
In conclusion, I believe that if the person has the determination they should be allowed to commit suicide.
Also look at is from a juridical point of view. If you "assisted" someone in their suicide, how would you prove it to a judge? Videos could be forced, as could letters. Recorded wills could be faked. I think our justice system has this law primarily as a means to shut down a possible loophole through which a serial killer may escape
ReplyDeletebut as far as solitary suicide is concerned, if a person wants to commit suicide because they dropped their water bottle, there should be no one stopping them. their choice
ReplyDelete@Willow - I also agree with you. I would only ever help someone with "suicide" if they were terminally ill, and just can't deal with the pain anymore. I would NEVER help a "emotional teenager" with something like this.
ReplyDelete@Caitlin - Agreed. Refer to statement @ Willow. :P
@Walm - Sure, it is there choice - but read what you said. You think it's right for someone to help someone kill themselves if they're depressed? I'd have to disagree. Depression is managable with therapy and medicine. Not all illnesses are.
if someone wants to commit suicide, they'll do it regardless.
ReplyDeleteand, those teenagers wouldnt go to a hospital, because there would be intensive counselling. as I have stated.
^But then what happens if they can't afford it?
ReplyDeleteshould be free.
ReplyDeletealso, in the eluana englaro case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eluana_Englaro), and the terri schiavo case, the people were stuck in hospital beds for years in vegetative states. think fo the tax money spent keeping a false hope alive. think of how selfish it is of family to keep people who will never be able to be mobile again, stuck on a hospital bed. what benefit have it?
Agreed. It should be free.
ReplyDeleteI think that Canadian Parliament should change the law banning assisted suicide to legalizing physician-assisted suicide.
ReplyDeletePhysician-assisted suicides would only be performed to conscious mind individuals who request the suicide in situations such as an incurable illness or chronic intense pain. The suicides would end the patient's life as painlessly and humanly as possible. For ex. a pill.
Furthermore, physician-assisted suicides would only be done when requested by a clear conscious patient and where the patient would get permission for the suicide if the person passes an interview where a qualified judge examines the situation and allows it to prevent murder as willowran suggested and also so the person doesn't die because of reasons such as depression or possibly amendable situations.
agreed, caleb
ReplyDeleteI also agree that in tough situations where a patient is suffering for a period of time on -end that they should be granted the mercy of being put out of their pain and misery. Forcing these people to cope with the hardships of their disease etc. is unjust. I agree with Sue Rodriguez in the fact that I believe my body is my own property and that put in a simillar situation, I would expect to have consent of my own death as well. Clearly Sue had time to think about her decision and it's not like the people I'm using as examples are those who would not be suffering for lengthy periods of time. I think that when all is set and done the people who are fighting a losing battle should at least be given the dignity of having the power to call it quits when its clear the outcome will not change no matter how much more suffering they will endure.
ReplyDeletei agree with amelia when she says that if someone wants to commit suicide they will do it regardless. lthough i think this is a touchy subject i think that having assisted suicide is just unethical and really pointless. If someone has cancer now a days, they are given heavy doses of drungs, and if you cant afford it they do there best or they kill themselves. Ad although it is upsetting, its just the cycle of life no mater how much it sucks. So i do not think it should be legalized because then it comes to bring up a whole other bout of ways killers can unguilty themseles with. hey could say "but it was assisted suicide! they wanted to die" and although that person might gave been perfecly healthy, there would have to be a whole new investigation hich is entirly unpratical.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Abigail, it would be tough to have it become legal, however I can really see what Sue Rodriguez is saying. I think that if it is legal, there should be a long process that goes with it that involves a lot of paper work and even going through some sort of legal process to make sure that people are doing it for the right reasons. People should not just attempting to receive permission to perform assisted suicide because they are struggling to cope with their life problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree that parliament should change the laws, although it would be very difficult to mandate a law wherein the use of assisted suicide is relative to the situation. For example, one in favour or euthanasia would likely argue that a major depressive patient with Addison's disease should not be eligible for assisted suicide, yet an individual with a terminal illness such as end stage cancer, cystic fibrosis, or, in this case, ALS would surely qualify. Controversy would likely ensue the proclamation that people with certain afflictions can be legally abetted in their deaths while others cannot. This would usurp the equality Canadian citizenship endows upon us. Additionally, how can one quantify the amount of suffering permitted to sanction the appropriate use of euthanasia?" It is not possible.
ReplyDeleteBy no means am I against assisted suicide. Verily, if it were my decision, I would be in favour of the legalization of euthanasia. But there is too much red tape, too many liabilities & contradictions, and too much potential confusion, which could send 'law abiding' physicians to jail without just cause, aside from a technicality or an mendacious claim.
If a law were to be passed, I believe it should be for those with terminal illnesses, who, at the end of their condition, will neither want to live, nor be able to kill themselves. For AS to be implemented, the patient must have already signed a form of consent--in clear consciousness and while fully understanding that which they are agreeing to--so as to assure no legal issues. Those who wish to die and are capable of carrying out the task should not apply to this criteria.
Lastly, there are other measures that one could undertake if suffering is unbearable; DNRs, palliative care, and palliative sedation. To clarify, DNR (do not resuscitate) is a form, signed by the patient, stating that, in the event of the cessation of their autonomic functions, they will not be brought back to life. Palliative care is undertaken to relieve the suffering of a patient. It is to alleviate the pain a dying person is experiencing so their death is less agonizing, and their last moments of their life are not encumbered by intolerable pain. Lastly, palliative sedation is a method of palliative care wherein sedative drugs are administered to alleviate symptoms. Physicians revert to this when nothing else works. It differs from euthanasia "as the goal of palliative sedation is to control symptoms through sedation but not shorten the patient's life, while in euthanasia the goal is to shorten life to cease symptoms."¹
Also, I very much agree with the comment posted by Caleb.
¹http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_sedation
I also agree in the case of patients whose physical and mental capabilities cannot be restored, whose deteriorating conditions cannot be reversed, and whose pain cannot be eliminated. When such people ask for assistance, I think their wishes should be respected. Lying in a hospital bed they can only look forward to more suffering. When such people beg for an end to their pain, it would be inhumane to refuse their pleas.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court of Canada has said that the “right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is fundamental to a person’s dignity and autonomy.” Even if the condition is life-threatening and the medical treatment is life saving, an individual still had the right to refuse. Yet even if an individual has consented to their death, they do not have the right? Then isn't depriving them of this in disrespect to their autonomy?
I agree Deborah, and I like that argument.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court decided against Sue Rodriguez, as I'm sure you know. Sue did eventually have a doctor-assisted suicide. The name of the doctor was not known, to protect him/her from legal liability. Sue's champion in Parliament was Svend Robinson, who you may be familiar with. Svend Robinson was the first openly gay MP. Svend Robinson tried to get a Private Member's Bill passed regarding Doctor-Assisted suicide, but it did not get passed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that parliament should change the laws, although it would be very difficult to mandate a law wherein the use of assisted suicide is relative to the situation. For example, one in favour or euthanasia would likely argue that a major depressive patient with Addison's disease should not be eligible for assisted suicide, yet an individual with a terminal illness such as end stage cancer, cystic fibrosis, or, in this case, ALS would surely qualify. Controversy would likely ensue the proclamation that people with certain afflictions can be legally abetted in their deaths while others cannot. This would usurp the equality Canadian citizenship endows upon us. Additionally, how can one quantify the amount of suffering permitted to sanction the appropriate use of euthanasia?" It is not possible.
ReplyDeleteBy no means am I against assisted suicide. Verily, if it were my decision, I would be in favour of the legalization of euthanasia. But there is too much red tape, too many liabilities & contradictions, and too much potential confusion, which could send 'law abiding' physicians to jail without just cause, aside from a technicality or an mendacious claim.
If a law were to be passed, I believe it should be for those with terminal illnesses, who, at the end of their condition, will neither want to live, nor be able to kill themselves. For AS to be implemented, the patient must have already signed a form of consent--in clear consciousness and while fully understanding that which they are agreeing to--so as to assure no legal issues. Those who wish to die and are capable of carrying out the task should not apply to this criteria.
Lastly, there are other measures that one could undertake if suffering is unbearable; DNRs, palliative care, and palliative sedation. To clarify, DNR (do not resuscitate) is a form, signed by the patient, stating that, in the event of the cessation of their autonomic functions, they will not be brought back to life. Palliative care is undertaken to relieve the suffering of a patient. It is to alleviate the pain a dying person is experiencing so their death is less agonizing, and their last moments of their life are not encumbered by intolerable pain. Lastly, palliative sedation is a method of palliative care wherein sedative drugs are administered to alleviate symptoms. Physicians revert to this when nothing else works. It differs from euthanasia "as the goal of palliative sedation is to control symptoms through sedation but not shorten the patient's life, while in euthanasia the goal is to shorten life to cease symptoms."¹
Also, I very much agree with the comment posted by Caleb.