Euthanasia is also referred to as mercy killing or assisted physician suicide. In general it is the painless killing of a patient suffering from painful or incurable diseases. The process is usually considered to be illegal in some countries while other has legalized it. The countries against the euthanasia believe that the processes usually infringes an individual’s the right to life, Security and liberty. Nevertheless, there are those countries such as Colombia and now Canada which supports euthanasia on constitutional grounds. In the case of Carter V. Attorney General, where a woman suffering from Amytrophic Lateral Sclorosis together with Carter’s son in law and daughter, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Gloria Taylor and a family physician had launched a claim that euthanasia should be allowed give the health situation of the patient where they first succeed but the ruling was later overturned by the supreme court (Rodriquez, 2014). The work will give reasons for prohibition of euthanasia and why it should be criminally prohibited or decriminalized.

Euthanasia usually infringes the right to security, liberty and life of the person killed which are guaranteed by the constitution under section seven of the Charter of rights and freedoms. The mercy killing usually infringes the rights life to the individual killed because it has the impact of forcing the individuals to take away their lives prematurely because they will feel that they will not be in better position to do so when they will be weak and disabled. Moreover, the euthanasia would be a process of infringing on the right to liberty of an individual. The process usually deprives the suffering individual the right and opportunity to make his or her own medical decisions especially those concerned with the body integrity. In addition, mercy killing will also infringe of the suffering individual the right to security because the physical forces the individual to endure intolerable suffering. It should be understood that the role of the law is to protect the weak in the society especially the suffering individuals. Therefore, the law should never allow the physicians to commit suicide (Rodriquez, 2014). The doctors and the medical physicians should understand the bioethics which calls them to use their knowledge and experience to protect life at all the time. Euthanasia process might occur in different forms which might include: the physician giving the suffering patient information that enable her or him to end the life or the physician might inject certain kind of medicine to the suffering patient or us acts which will eventually end the life of the suffering patient. Decriminalization of euthanasia brings together the two acts of suicide as they are both illegal and should always be prohibited. Both the physician and the suffering individual should understand that life is holy and no one has the right or authority to take his or her own life or the life of the other individual at any course.

Immanuel Kant’s moral theory believes that an individual has the right to life. It suggests that the euthanasia should be decriminalized and that the physicians should always be guided by the bioethics which calls them to protect life at all the time. The physician has a moral duty to use his or her knowledge and experience to ensure that the patient receives the appropriate medication and care despite the health condition the patient might be. Immanuel Kant’s moral theory also believes that euthanasia shall not only be used on the terminally ill individuals but on other individuals.  Allowing euthanasia shall be one way of eliminating terminally ill individuals in order to overcome the treatment bill and will encourage more suicide in the society (Rodriquez, 2014). Hence, both the physician and the terminally ill individual should understand that by allowing euthanasia it will be one way of rejecting the advantages of human life value.  The theory of utilitarianism is a theory is a theory of ethics which believes that the best morals and actions should result into maximization of utility. Therefore, euthanasia should never be allowed according to utilitarianism because the physician moral action does not respect the value of human life.

The decisions in the Carter v. Canada which supports the decriminalization of euthanasia is the federal criminal code which prohibits the physician assisted killing. The judge found that through mercy killing the physician would have infringed on the Canadian Charter rights to security, liberty and life. In addition, the B.C Court of Appeal over turned the ruling of the trial judge and stated that the ruling in support of euthanasia was unconstitutional because it never put into consideration the suffering individual’s right to liberty, life and security (Rodriquez, 2014). It also never put into consideration that allowing euthanasia would have some impact on the future in regard to individuals with acute diseases as they would be forced to terminate their life before their time of death comes. The court also failed to put into consideration that the physicians have the role of protecting life through the use of their knowledge and experience.

 The major criticisms and objections against decriminalization of euthanasia believe that the terminally ill individual should be allowed to reduce pain. Given that the patient was terminally ill the process does not shorten life of the patient by conducting euthanasia, most people across the globe supports it, is of great economic importance because less health costs shall be required, it will improve the quality of life as people would no longer fear death and it would not target the weak (Rodriquez, 2014). It would eventually reveal whether the doctors follow the Hippocratic Oath or infringes it. Nevertheless, euthanasia should never be allowed at any course.

 

References

Rodriquez, D. (2014). The Supreme Court of Canada Ruling in Carter v. Canada: A New Era of End-of-Life Care for Canadians. Oxford University press.