In section 214 of The Criminal Code of Canada, it is stated that anyone who counsels, aids or otherwise assists someone to commit suicide is liable of a criminal offense and can be sentenced up to 14 years in prison. Despite this, a new legislative document proposed in Québec by a panel of legal experts could bypass the law through the jurisdiction they hold over their provincial health-care services. Hearings on the matter are already scheduled for this fall, with strong arguments and beliefs existing for both sides of the issue.
Currently, patients with terminal illnesses are supported by whatever palliative care is accessible to them. Professional and public opinion about presently available palliative care, however, is far from high. The closest thing available to assisted suicide is a form of ‘passive’ euthanasia. This consists of a physician withholding life-supporting care, be it necessary respirators, medication, or simply nourishment (effectively starving the patient to death). The physicians who submit to this passive euthanasia are not charged with a criminal offense, and so it has become common practice in hospitals across Canada when a patient expresses a coherent and clear desire to die, or if the patient is incapable, when the next-of-kin deems it acceptable physicians will remove their patient from what is generally deemed as ‘life support’. Many Canadians find this current state of affairs unacceptable and undignified, wishing for a quicker, better way to end the suffering of a terminally ill patient than waiting for their bodies to die ‘naturally’.
In 2010, a federal vote showed that the vast majority of Canadian politicians were against changing the current federal laws about assisted suicide. Much of the controversy of implementing an active form of euthanasia comes with the idea that medical professionals would begin to abuse the option of assisted suicide — after all, it is far less expensive and timely to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient. Others propose that with such an open option available, patients might opt to terminate their life earlier then physicians think appropriate, especially given the current state of palliative care. Many in opposition also argue that the use of euthanasia might surpass use in terminal illness cases exclusively. Patients living with extreme disabilities, severe mental ailments, or painful but not life-threatening chronic illnesses, may begin to request such actions.
In order to combat these worries, the legislation outlines very specific conditions that would have to be met in order for active, legal euthanasia to be performed. It would require a patient to be over the age of 18, afflicted by an inevitably terminal disease, and suffering from a significant amount of mental or physical discomfort that cannot be eased or treated in a tolerable manner. The patient would then have to express the desire to end their life in writing, as well as the approval of two appropriate medical professionals before the procedure could be conducted.
One of the biggest pushes for the legalization of euthanasia comes from the quiet truth that many physicians actively and illegally perform the process anyways to ease the pain of dieing patients. By doing so, not only are there many potential dangers and mistakes that could arise from undocumented and unofficial procedures, but the lack of regulation on the cases could cause grievous infringements of human rights. Legalization is seen as the best way to implement and enforce strict guidelines and procedures when assisted suicide is requested to avoid these unfortunate occurrences.
With such controversy and conflicting opinions on such a delicate subject, it is likely that discussions will be long and tedious before any final conclusions and decisions are made.
Leave a Reply