Recent insights: Thoughts on euthanasia

Sue Rodriguez was a 42 year old woman who developed a severe disease called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in other words, Lou Gehrig’s disease. This disease deteriorates the ability to walk, speak move or swallow over time. Knowing how her life would end, Rodriguez confirmed that she wished to control the place, time and manner of her death. Sue did not want to die while she could control and enjoy life, by the time she would be willing to take her life; she would be incapable of committing suicide without assistance of a physician, and euthanasia. 

The Act of euthanasia is a very crucial and repetitive controversy and has been a prevalent issue in society for many years. Many argue that those who are terminally ill or suffering from severe mental and/or physical damage should be allowed to die instead of being kept alive by machines and medication (Sue Rodriguez’s case). Some also believe that people should be allowed to make decisions for others who in an obvious suffering state and cannot express their own wishes. All in all, supporters of euthanasia believe that life should be free of pain and that human dignity should be preserved. On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia argue that legalizing it could cause unintentional harm. They pose questions as to why euthanasia is necessary, discussing that their doctors are not obligated to treat an illness unless they expect to achieve a benefit for the patient. If better pain management is required, then it should be available, even if it does nothing to prolong life.Over time persons of court decided that section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada makes it an offence for a person to aid or abet anyone to commit suicide, whether death ensues or not). These persons also believe that the law should protect people who cannot consent to euthanasia. They argued that human beings should not be allowed to decide who should live or die.

In Rodriguez’s defense, she explains how she personally is wishing death upon herself, no one else’s input is being considered in her wish to die using euthanasia. Rodriguez argued that section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada infringes section 7 of the Charter in that it deprives her of liberty and security of the person by prohibiting her from ending her life when her illness had rendered her incapable of doing so without assistance. The appellant also argues that denying her an assisted suicide because of section 241 amounts to cruel and unusual treatment and violates section 12 of the Charter (“Treatment” within the meaning of section 12, includes treatment imposed by the state in contexts other than those of a penal or non-penal nature). In general life should be free of pain and that human dignity should be preserved. Thus, the Court should not dismiss Sue Rodriguez’s application and her appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal should not be denied.

In conclusion Section 241 of the Criminal Code does in fact infringe section 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to fundamental justice), Section 12 (the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment), and section 15 (equality rights) under the Charter (Bowers, C. A. 1995). Therefore Sue Rodriguez should be permitted the right to commit the Act of suicide as it does not inflict on the three sections mentioned above.