Thoughts on Doctor Assisted Suicide
If anyone killed a healthy person, they would be called a
murderer. If a non-doctor killed an unhealthy person, they would also be called
a murderer. There are cases where citizens have been convicted of killing
their handicapped family members: the Latimer case. Finally, if someone helped someone
kill another person, they would be an accessory to murder. The Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms states: “Every individual is equal before and under the
law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability.” (Equality Rights, 15, 1) So, according to law, when a
doctor and a citizen agree to take that citizen’s life, they both should be
considered murderers; the doctor because they killed the person, and the person
because they agreed, so an accessory to murder, (their own). The classic Hippocratic Oath states: I will
neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it nor will I make a
suggestion to this effect.” The modern version of the Oath also states: “Above
all, I must not play at God.” In light of these statements, why is it that
doctors are now allowed to “play God” and administer deadly drugs?
In school, we are taught that democracy is important. We’re
taught that there are five pillars that help form democracy: Wirth and
Equality, Rule of Law, Government Responsibility and Citizen responsibility. According
to the first pillar of liberalism and the Canadian Charter of Right and
Freedoms, everyone has worth and equality.
Yet laws on doctor-assisted suicide seek to change this.
Rule of law is also related as, if the law were to be
passed, doctors would be given the right to kill people. The fact that they
have a chronic, painful disease doesn’t change their humanity under the law. This
law would be judging doctors differently than the rest of the populace and the
rule of law would be no more. Citizen’s responsibility is addressed as it
relates to all citizens. It is all citizen’s responsibility to speak their
opinion on this matter.
Classical liberal thinkers John Locke and John Stuart mill
both agree that it is the government’s first responsibility to protect the
people, especially those who can’t protect themselves. Yet, once again, the
striking of the law changes the foundational ideas of liberalism. Even modern
liberalism relies on government protection. So with the pillar of Worth and
Equality disregarded, the Rule of Law pillar smashed, and the pillar of Government
Responsibility under renovations, how will democracy or liberalism stand?
Regardless of whether I consider the law to be “right” or
“wrong”, I feel that the act of striking down the law is totally opposite of
our current laws and what our country stands for. Canada claims to be a country
of equality and freedom; we are the mosaic country. Canada claims to value human
life; that is we have health care and don’t go killing all who oppose us. But
the striking of the old law brings me to question all this. Does all life
really have value and equality under the laws of Canada?
Comments
Post a Comment