Active Euthanasia And Nancy B. V. Hotel Dieu-De Canada

1202 Words 5 Pages
There are many differences between active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and assisted suicide that are important to distinguish. Cases such as Nancy B. v, Hotel Dieu-de Quebec (1992), Sue Rodriguez, and Gloria Taylor have all had great significance on these issues. This is a quite controversial topic that affects many individuals, with multiple different views and opinions. There are sophisticated arguments for both the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, and against euthanasia/assisted suicide. This paper will define these key terms so the reader can determine the difference between them, discuss relevant cases that has impacted these concepts, and provide arguments for and against the legalization of euthanasia and assisted …show more content…
v, Hotel Dieu-de Quebec (1992) An applicable case involving passive euthanasia is Nancy B. v. Hotel Dieu-de Quebec (1992). Nancy was a twenty five year old woman who was diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome. The bodies immune system often attacks parts of the nervous system, and often causes weakness and affects an individual’s breathing. Many patients are put on machines to help them breathe, similar to Nancy. She was quite capable of making logical decisions, and decided she wanted to be disconnected from her artificial ventilation. The was being kept alive, however stranded in her bed with no progress on her condition being made. The court found that her death would be unable to be considered either suicide or homicide. This led them to find it considered a natural death. “Without artificial life support, she would succumb to her natural fate, not to suicide nor to medically-induced death.” (Dickens, 1993, p.1058-1059) Although she was surviving through a machine and it was helping her breathe, it would not improve or cure her condition. Her life would be constricted to a bed, living off a machine to help her breathe. “Nancy B. was held to have a right to die, in that neither a physician nor a hospital could treat her without her consent, but she was not necessarily held to have a right to peaceful death. She could refuse all treatment by legal refusal to be a patient, but the judge did not necessarily hold that she had a right as a patient to be eased into death …show more content…
This section states that “every person who, with intent … to endanger the life of any person ... “ (Criminal Code, 1985) is causing bodily harm with intent and committing a criminal

Related Documents