To What Extent Should Safeguards Be Put into a Potential Euthanasia Law in Canada?

...

These frightening studies illustrate all too clearly the need for attentive Canadian implementations. Doctor Margaret Connelle, a Langley palliative care expert for over two decades, had two recommendations to help solve these dilemmas (Connelle et al., 2016). First, euthanasia should not be made easy. Connelle asserts that there needs to be a separate judicial and medical review along with rigorous legal documentation before, during, and after the procedure. She also argued that there should be a stringent waiting period policy that gives enough time to review and reconsider a potential premature death. It should also be in proportion to how much the patient has left to live. For example, a young accident victim with a spinal injury wanting to die would have to wait longer than someone dying of a terminal cancer. Second, euthanasia should take place in a separate facility, specially designed for this purpose, and with a group of well-trained staff. This is to avoid decisions being made in a busy day-to-day hospital life. If a patient goes to this type of facility, they would know in advance and in sound mind that the decision they made is after a long and cautious deliberation process.

Ⅲ. Social Implications

While legalizing euthanasia has numerous legal complications, it has been proven that euthanasia benefits the families of the patients. According to a study done by Georges, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Muller, Wal, Heide, and Maas, P. J. (2007), 92% of relatives reported that euthanasia had clearly contributed to the quality of the end of life of their loved ones by avoiding further suffering. Moreover, Swarte, N. B. (2003) asserts that the families of patients who died by euthanasia had less traumatic grief symptoms than the families of patients who died of natural causes. Possible explanations for this finding include the patient having the opportunity to say goodbye, being more prepared for death. Proponents of euthanasia uses these evidences to illustrate that legalizing euthanasia has been favourable to the families of the patients.

However, many Canadian also worry about the influence of the legislation on the larger society, not only families. Natalie Sonnen, executive director of Life Canada (BC Branch) argues that “the advent of euthanasia will see an erosion of the collective will to see good palliative care” for several reasons (Connelle et al., 2016). First, Canadian Institute for Health Information (2007) asserts that only 16% to 30% of Canadians currently receive good palliative care. We should not be jumping to euthanasia as a solution all palliative solutions have been considered. Second, once this law is enacted, the trickle-down effect to the population will be that it would be acceptable to pursue euthanasia to end human suffering. The Carter v Canada case made it very evident in the ruling that euthanasia was to be an exception, not a rule. Public debate is already showing a misunderstood, and much more liberal perspective of euthanasia than the Supreme Court decision. Finally, Sonnen asserts that once euthanasia is viewed as a fundamental human right, there is a danger that the prohibitions and safeguards set up will be seen as “infringements on human rights.”

While it is difficult to completely prevent these consequences, there are several steps that can be taken. First, there must be a national palliative care strategy before any progress regarding euthanasia bill is made. The reason is because euthanasia always must be the last resort, not an escape route. Therefore, by adopting a sufficient palliative care system, euthanasia is will remain a final option. Most importantly, Canadians should be informed with unbiased education about euthanasia. Canadians, as a society, must understand the negative repercussions euthanasia can bring if we do not exercise caution in our definition of its existence as a right.

Ⅳ. Medical arguments

This subject brings another significant concern regarding the doctors who will actually perform euthanasia. First, euthanasia questions the very definition of the roles of doctors. The role of doctors is shaped by the Hippocratic Oath, a historical tradition that new doctors use to be sworn in. It has been recognized as the foundation of medical ethics for millennia. Kure (2011), argues that although euthanasia is not directly forbidden by the Hippocratic Oath, such a prohibition can be deduced based on the line 'To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.' He states that euthanasia does not correspond with either the Hippocratic Oath or the spirit of the Hippocratic tradition. Doctors are should have a clear moral and professional obligation and not to have any part in hastening the death of patients.

This leads to another question: why must doctors do it? Dr. Desmond Viagas, who has been a doctor for 23 years, asserts that doctors are being made the “lackey” of the Supreme Court (Connelle et al., 2016). Moreover, reports from Marwijk, Haverkate, Royen, and The (2007) and Stevens Jr. (2006) suggest that there is a significant amount of emotional and psychological toll on the doctors who had performed euthanasia. This is one of the reason why the Canadian Medical Association (2014) states 71.5% of its one hundred and fifty-one doctors who participated in their online survey, do not support euthanasia based on an online poll.

These startling results imply the imminent need for a number of safeguards to be implemented. The CMA (2014) recommends several of them. First, the law must accommodate doctors’ freedom of conscience. For example, doctors must be allowed to follow their own beliefs and refer patients to other doctors if they do not agree with the new law. It would be hypocritical to respect only the patient’s rights and ignore the doctor’s rights. Second, it must be ensured that procedures for enabling euthanasia are clear for both doctors and patients. Everyone involved in the procedure must have a complete understanding of what action is going to be done and its consequences before a patient is introduced to it.

Ⅴ. Conclusion

Legalizing euthanasia in Canada will likely be inevitable. It is a matter of time, not whether it should happen or not. To prevent any negative consequences, Canada must ensure that adequate and stringent safeguards are implemented in the following areas. Precaution for the legal sector must include considerations of jurisdiction and rights of all people. Safeguards for social implications have to consider the influence of the legislation on future society. Finally, opinions of doctors should be completely examined as they are going to be the ones