Euthanasia is a very controversial topic, which has recently gain momentum, ever since the Supreme Court of Canada passed a law legalizing assisted suicide. There are two groups in society, one is happy since, this law will allow them or family members to end their lives when they feel is too demining to be alive or feel they are a burden to their families or society. And the other is feeling disappointed at the ruling the Supreme Court of Canada gave since, human life should be respected from the moment of conception until the end of life itself, respect the natural course of life (old age).
Differentiating between passive and active euthanasia is important and a distinction should be made; according to James Rachels passive euthanasia is …show more content…
Now it has become an issue of a direct violation of conscience. A doctor whose principles are to save lives, now he/she will be confronted with the reality of ending a life. If a doctor decides not to perform assisted suicide; then the doctor has to make sure the “patient” is directed to a physician who will perform the assisted suicide. Totally going against the person’s morality and a direct violation of the doctor’s conscience, moreover we need to have legislation in palace in order to protect the vulnerable people and so there is no …show more content…
It is not tolerant of religious diversity. It is religious discrimination that punishes those who so faithfully serve everyone who comes to them, and have done so since before Canada existed but who, in good conscience, cannot perform some procedures, such as helping to kill their patients.” (Cardinal, 2016)
In conclusion, we need to have a fair legislation, which will respect the will of patients and doctors. Unfortunately assisted suicide will be a reality in Canadian soil. At the moment there is a legislation being drafted in order to give this right to “personal liberties”. However, what it needs to be done at the moment is as stated above, to draft a clear and fair legislation, where there will not be a violation of doctor’s (any individual who work as a care giver) conscience. No one should infringe in someone’s moral view of life and moral conscience and personal
Differentiating between passive and active euthanasia is important and a distinction should be made; according to James Rachels passive euthanasia is …show more content…
Now it has become an issue of a direct violation of conscience. A doctor whose principles are to save lives, now he/she will be confronted with the reality of ending a life. If a doctor decides not to perform assisted suicide; then the doctor has to make sure the “patient” is directed to a physician who will perform the assisted suicide. Totally going against the person’s morality and a direct violation of the doctor’s conscience, moreover we need to have legislation in palace in order to protect the vulnerable people and so there is no …show more content…
It is not tolerant of religious diversity. It is religious discrimination that punishes those who so faithfully serve everyone who comes to them, and have done so since before Canada existed but who, in good conscience, cannot perform some procedures, such as helping to kill their patients.” (Cardinal, 2016)
In conclusion, we need to have a fair legislation, which will respect the will of patients and doctors. Unfortunately assisted suicide will be a reality in Canadian soil. At the moment there is a legislation being drafted in order to give this right to “personal liberties”. However, what it needs to be done at the moment is as stated above, to draft a clear and fair legislation, where there will not be a violation of doctor’s (any individual who work as a care giver) conscience. No one should infringe in someone’s moral view of life and moral conscience and personal