Right to live vs right to die in euthanasia


Over the past few years, a few countries have given the green light to medically assisted dying, where physicians administer interventions such as lethal injections. In the United States, assisted dying still involves a more passive approach known as “physician-assisted suicide,” where doctors provide patients with a lethal dose of medications for self-administration. The practice is legal in 10 states and in D.C. We have provided assistance for certain end-of-life programs.
The proposed expansion of euthanasia in Canada is currently being considered, but it raises concerns. The country already has a highly lenient euthanasia regime, allowing patients to request “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAID) for physical conditions they find intolerable, regardless of whether they are terminal or not. And on March 17, pending a potential shift in government policy, Canada will grant authorization for MAID to patients who solely suffer from psychiatric illnesses like depression or schizophrenia.
Actually, Canada has decided to temporarily halt the expansion of its “medical assistance in dying” law. PM Trudeau announced on February 1 that the provision allowing mentally ill patients to apply for euthanasia will be postponed until 2027. The original date was set for March 2024, but Health Minister Mark Holland has justified its postponement until after the 2025 federal election.
Observing the aging process of someone dear to you can be quite perplexing. When individuals experience Alzheimer’s or dementia, the grieving process often begins even before their passing. Every day, their essence becomes increasingly transparent, gradually losing their former identity. You struggle to hold onto the remnants of a familiar identity as it gradually fades into an unknown realm.
Whoever is suffering a painful life should have the freedom to end it. Perhaps no one should tell someone in constant suffering that they cannot die with dignity.
Euthanasia, often known as medically assisted dying, involves painless death to terminate an incurable sickness or an irreversible vegetative state. Before understanding euthanasia, its definition, and its goal, one must comprehend death and how medical technology has changed it.
Previously, the definition of death was predicated on the heart stopping, but it has now been updated to include brain dead. With this perspective in mind, euthanasia may be better understood as a technique of gently terminating a person’s life to alleviate suffering caused by an incurable or fatal condition.
Euthanasia may be active or passive. Active euthanasia occurs when a medical expert offers the means to end a person’s life. Passive euthanasia includes discontinuing treatment to assist in dying.
Assisted death is allowed in several countries. It has been legal in Switzerland, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, California, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Colombia. Also, Five of six Australian states allow assisted dying. The Scottish Parliament will examine an assisted dying bill next session. After years of protest, the Royal College of Physicians became neutral last year.
Why? Comfortable and humane death is best. Though we don’t like to accept it, it decreases the immense expense of allowing society to profit on a person’s last days.
Many physicians at care facilities and hospitals check on elderly, unwell, dying relatives and gently give them an injection to put them to sleep and relieve their misery. Dying individuals understood this and wanted death this way instead than now.
Today, nursing homes, hospitals, and other institutions make hundreds of thousands from dying patients. Not right. Today, some people end their misery by themselves, sometimes awkwardly. We call suicide. Old people in agony benefit from compassion, not suicide. After they beg you to disconnect them or give them something to sleep, you’ll realize how hard it is to see someone you love suffer. Society has deemed it wrong.
WHO: Suicide was the fourth leading cause of death for 15-29-year-olds in 2019. The WHO cited inadequate data, a lack of awareness of suicide as a public health issue, and many nations’ suicide taboos as impediments to resolution.
(The writer is a veteran journalist and freelance writer based in Brampton).

editorial article 1
Comments (0)
Add Comment