Death is a harsh reality of life – whether we like it or not, we will be faced with it eventually. Despite its inevitability, however, death need not strip an individual of his or her dignity. This is the logic behind the British Columbian Supreme Court’s decision to declare a law banning doctor-assisted suicide as invalid. Doctor-assisted suicide, for those in the dark, is basically a patient asking his or her doctor to administer a lethal dose of morphine or some other drug to kill them. According to Justice Lynn Smith, the section of the Criminal Code prohibiting such actions as “unjustifiably infring[ing] the equality rights” of individuals suffering from degenerative diseases, like ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Justice Smith went on to say that the legislative condemnation of doctor-assisted suicide was not something that should fall under constitutional jurisdiction. The decision will likely be appealed, and Justice Smith has given the Canadian parliament one year to introduce new legislation or make amendments to the existing legislation.
Until that time, however, doctor-assisted suicide is a legitimate practice in British Columbia, a reality that has found itself caught in the middle of a heated debate. On the one hand, the decision has been lauded by those who feel that people should be given the choice of humanely cutting the suffering short. On the flip side, many also believe that it devalues life, goes against religious conventions, and opens the door for abuses of the system by doctors. If one looks at Holland, for instance, where doctor-assisted suicide has been legalised for the past 19 years, there have been several instances where doctors have assisted patients’ suicides without the proper conditions being met (i.e. doctors assisting patients who aren’t actually suffering from intolerable pain). Moreover, there is, as always, the religious crowd that believes that doctors should not have the right to “play God,” not to mention the doctors who believe that it is an ethical violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Personally, however, I believe that there is a lot more that lies in favour of legalising doctor assisted suicide than there is from banning it. First and foremost, patients will no longer have to suffer from unimaginable bouts of pain without reason. The way I see it, if the “humane” way of ending an animal’s suffering is by putting it down, then the same logic should be able to be applied to humans. Furthermore, by giving patients the choice, we enable them to gain closure on their lives – say last goodbyes, arrange funerals, wills, etc. I understand that there are several doctors that are morally against the act, but with that being said, no one would be forced to perform the procedure – this is one place where I believe that conscience rights would be a legitimate means of giving doctors the choice. I don’t think that life is being devalued here, as doctors would actually be preventing the further deterioration of a person’s health. As for the people that think that legalising doctor-assisted suicide would lead to abuses of the system, I am sure that if the proper checks and safeguards were put into place, this would not be an issue.
It’s perfectly reasonable for doctors to be apprehensive and/or completely against such a procedure. At the same time, however, the choice should be available for patients – it does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, it does not discriminate or harm, it allows patients to preserve their dignity, and it cuts what is a horrifically painful process of deterioration short.
