Ethical Issues Associated with Physician Assisted Suicide

A human being should have the right to make the choice whether they live or die, especially if that person is experiencing unnecessary suffering from a terminal illness. If we look at the animal kingdom and our role as human beings within the hierarchy of life, humans find it is morally acceptable and humane to take the life of an injured animal if that animal is suffering and pending death. It should be morally unacceptable, as human beings, not to have the same compassion for each other as we do for other animals. Saying that we cannot allow a person to choose whether they live or die is, in essence, saying that their life does not belong to them, but rather to society.

The Criminal Code of Canada states in section 14, that "No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given". This means that, in our society, if a doctor is treating a person in Canada who is terminally ill and at that patient's request, that doctor gives the patient a lethal injection, he would be held criminally responsible for that person's death.

In looking at the mission physicians are tasked to uphold, the ethical principals related to physician assisted suicide appear very complex. Physicians must uphold the core principles of medical ethics aiming to benefit the sick without causing further illness in the process. Principles mentioned in the mission stated by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada state medicine is to help the sick by returning them to health while lessoning the suffering and decline that is often associated with their diseases. This means that the very ethical statement which at first seems to dismiss euthanasia, can be viewed as giving an argument for it. If the patient is unable to return to health then it needs to be determined whether it is of benefit to not allow that patient to end his life in comfort.

There is also the difference between the commonly allowed 'passive' euthanasia versus the illegal 'active' euthanasia. The Health Care Consent Act 1996, sets out standards for life-sustaining medical intervention. This Act determines what procedures can be stopped in order to allow a person to die. Passive would be used to describe anything which can be withheld to result in a person's ultimate death. For example, a patient can be starved or dehydrated until their body is no longer capable of sustaining life. Allowing a person near the end of their life to starve to death over a matter of days is legally seen as acceptable, while allowing a person to receive an injection which would end their suffering quickly is a criminal act.

In contrast to the ethical statements of the College of Physicians and Surgeons when dealing with humans, the American Medical Veterinary Association states that 'veterinarians have an ethical responsibility to provide essential services for animals when necessary to save life or relieve suffering (which may include) euthanasia to relieve suffering'. It would be considered inhumane for a family to not euthanize their suffering pet. Police are tasked with ending the life of a deer who has been hit by a car on a road to prevent it from further pain and suffering. Although society deems it wrong to allow an animal who cannot be cured to continue it's suffering, the same society somehow has determined that allowing a human the choice to end their own suffering is immoral. Interestingly, society would never agree with the decision to starve and dehydrate a dying animal.

A point which also deserves consideration is that surrounding religious groups and the common belief that God should choose death, not humans. Job 14:5 refers to God numbering our days and therefore deciding when a person is to die. Ecclesiastes 3:1-2, states "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted". The argument can be made however, that a terminally ill patient is at the end of their days and it would be questionable as to how artificially sustaining their life would be in contrast to God's will. Religious groups have allowed that the Government does have the right to decide