The debate about doctor-assisted dying has been controversial in many countries throughout the world, because each country has its own cultural aspects that govern them on what to do and what not to do. Doctor-assisted dying can also be called euthanasia, which is the act in which doctors inject critically ill patients with drugs that kill them without causing pain in them. Some countries have approved doctor-assisted dying, while others do not support the act because they term is unethical. For as many as twenty years, political differences between the Senate and the House of Commons in Canadian government have been debating on whether to pass doctor-assisted dying or not, until in 2015 when Canadian Supreme Court Judge Regina passed it. This meant that Canadian government allowed doctor-assisted dying, making Canada join other countries that allows assisted dying such as Netherlands, State of Oregon, State of Vermont, States of Washington and Montana, as well as Belgium.
According to Regina, she passed the physician-assisted death to act in accordance to the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Her decision gave a room for a consideration of people waiting for a long time in agony and suffering for the natural death, meaning that those people in critical condition can be assured of less suffering by assisting them to die peaceful and painless, other than waiting to die naturally while still in pain. On the same note, The House recommended for the controversial term “reasonably foreseeable” to be deleted so as to allow those terminally ill people without a clue on when they can recover their health, as well as those in much suffering to make their choice on doctor-assisted dying, as this will relieve them of pain.
The Global and Mail Canadian national hospital indicated that when bill C-14 will be passed into law, it will be the same as saying that Canada will give a legislation to kill its citizens, and this stands for immoral values. Besides, even though the Canadian government’s objective of passing this bill was to protect the lives of helpless people and to ensure that respect for human life is respected, it still falls as an immoral act because it goes against biblical anthropology that signifies life is a gift. In addition, it is not morally right to inject people to death, because people recover after a long-term illness (Bamgbose 115)
The church also had its say about this controversial debate. According to Catholic Bishops, doctor-assisted dying is an immoral act and as per the Catholics point of view, there is no correction that can equal goodness once the bill has been passed. In addition, churches believe that doctor-assisted dying is an act that is equivalent to an insult to the human dignity, dangerous to helpless people, and degrades human solidarity, and life is sacred and only God has the right to take it away (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops)
In conclusion, the issue on doctor-assisted dying keeps on triggering different reactions amongst people. Even though the Canadian government can approve the right to die, they must not forget that those to be affected are human beings whose dignity must be respected, and therefore, they should understand that even the vulnerable people have a purpose and value for life. It is the duty of every human being to respect the human dignity of another person, by taking care of each other, and allowing nature to take its cause and meet death with dignity no matter the conditions. Besides, people taking care of the vulnerable should not recommend assisted death to relieve themselves of the burdens to take care of them, because life is sacred and initiating death is not a guarantee that their burdens will be relieved as per se.
Works Cited
Bamgbose, Oluyemisi. "Euthanasia: another face of murder." International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 48.1 (2004): 111-121.
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops: Statement on Bill C-14 by the CCCB. “Web”. (April 14, 2016).
