The legalization of Euthanasia is an ethical concern in Canada. Euthanasia refers to the process of medical assistance in dying. It is one of the easiest methods to terminate the life of a person who may be having a terminal illness like cancer and HIV/Aids in their lasts stages. However, some people argue that the individual must be sure that they have to die in the end. Recently, the Canadian legislator changed the rule and advocated for euthanasia among the terminally ill patients. The law is unethical as most people do not identify with the effects of the law amongst themselves.
The legislation suggests that euthanasia is implementable by the physicians as well as nurse practitioners. However, it will have to depend on where one lives for proper execution. The law suggests two ways of medical assistance to death for the Canadians. The first one is the direct administration of a substance that leads to death like the injection of a drug. It is commonly known as voluntary euthanasia. The second method is the prescription of a self-administered drug that leads to death, which is referred to as the medically-assisted suicide (Snyder 12).
The ownership of life is one of the most controversial elements in the execution of euthanasia. Most people do not understand the mystery of who supports life and who has the responsibility of taking life. Most religions know that God owns life and he gives it to human beings. Therefore, at no point should life be taken away without the willingness of God. The Supreme Being will remain the super power and the owner of life to make it count in the hands of human beings all the time (Woodhead 39).
Secondly, it is controversial to determine the critical point of life where the termination is required. It is difficult to measure the point at which one deserves to die. Pain may not be the best explanation for death at any point (Woodhead 41). Therefore, it is unclear how the physicians would determine the extreme pain, which would demand death for the patient.
Further controversy in the legislation of euthanasia is the definition of the voluntary euthanasia. The voluntary act is meant to ensure no individual has been forced to death. In most cases, a harmful substance is introduced into the body to push the person to death. The process of administering the substance must be one very impractical and unethical as it does not value the life of the individual (Snyder 21).
It is also a controversy how some people may be willing to die out of euthanasia despite lacking any terminal illness. It may not be easy to verify whether the individuals are ready to die out of a disease or another reason. Therefore, euthanasia needs to be controlled entirely and administered in the easiest way possible. The effects of such legislation may not be controlled if the primary cause of death cannot be identified.
The involvement of the family in the euthanasia process is equally controversial. It is usually difficult for the family members to accept the death of one of them. Therefore, giving them an opportunity to exercise authority over the death of their relative may be extremely sensitive (Woodhead 42). Not all people are willing to participate in such unethical activities.
Also, the unethical practice does not have religious backing. Different religions have different views on the practice. However, most of them do not condone the practice. They find it controversial to allow the people to terminate the lives that they did not create. There is a need to be respect human life based on the value of it by the creator. However, some religions do not find the wrong deal in leading a patient to death(Snyder 32).
The practice is also controversial on how to protect the right of healthcare providers based on their values and beliefs. The medical practitioners have different beliefs, which may influence their medical actions. The law does not permit allow all medical practitioners to provide the medical assistance in dying. As a result, there may be a concern for the patients who wish to access the medical help in dying. It would be extremely challenging to achieve a balance in the society since some practitioners may not be qualified to offer the service (Snyder 34).
Canada is a multicultural nation where different people may have different views or opinions on the euthanasia practice. The influence of the legislation may be as a result of the controversy between the law and the religions in the state. The law may offer some provisions based on the views of the people in the nation. On the other hand, the laws may be challenged by the existence of some religious beliefs. Different religions have different views on the euthanasia practices (Perrett 310). Therefore, people from different religious backgrounds should be treated with a unique value for behavior and attitudes towards actions.
Buddhism is one of the main religions in Canada and has had different views from other faiths on the practice. In Buddhism, the ethics are defined by the virtue, karma as well as liberation. It is less concerned about the views of any divine individual. Based on the Buddhist scriptures, history as well as modern views, it is incredibly easy to give the new legislation a legal approval to make it meaningful to the society (Woodhead 44). Value for the law is assured as the consideration for religious principles on euthanasia is a major requirement.
The religion values people by life and the willingness to participate in critical decisions, which would ensure progress. The society becomes exceedingly sensitive of the matters regarding Euthanasia and people must be willing to take part in the decisions, which will ensure achievement of progress (Young 151). People must be satisfied through decisions and willingness to participate in the most critical processes, which matter in religion.
Buddhism emphasizes on not killing the human beings. It is the first precept among the five most common precepts in Buddhism. Therefore, at first look into the precepts, one would think that euthanasia is wrong within Buddhism. Although the precepts are not commandments, they are training rules, which help in ensuring that people in the society behave in the most outstanding manner (Snyder 42). Therefore, inapplication of the precepts an exclusive keenness must be employed in an event where an individual would undergo euthanasia.
At some point Buddhism supports euthanasia. However, the support must be backed with a medical background that the individual is indeed dying. The critical condition of a patient may only require death to offer the individual the deserved rest. Some sicknesses become extremely complicated pushing an individual to the state of extensive pain (Young 152). The society needs people with the exclusive power to make choices as the Buddhism allows people to make critical decisions on their practices towards euthanasia.
Buddhism values compassion in regard to the health of an individual. When a patient is in extreme pain, it is normal for any person to be compassionate to the patient. It means that the when a patient is extremely unwell the society should stand strong to protect them and assure them of excellent health free of pain (Perrett 311). Therefore, through compassion, the individuals may support euthanasia as a method of terminating the life of the patient.
According to Buddhists, life is precious and should be valued as such. Therefore, it is paramount to value life and respect every condition that goes with it. It means that people must be willing to appreciate and protect lives. However, a situation where the life may be saved from the extensive pain should be used. It is a case of excessive doubts, but the best decisions should be made (Young 155). In this case, it would be to save the individual from pain and assure them of comfort in death.
The Buddhists usually view voluntary euthanasia as a form of assisted suicide. In Buddhism, suicide is viewed as a prudential error. The unresolved situations will always lead to the realization of exclusive challenges in the present difficulty. A point where the individuals view euthanasia as suicide would lead to an increased rate of termination of lives(Perrett 312).
However, the application of the principle of error to the law may be controversial. A clear line must be drawn between euthanasia and suicide. People must be ready to protect the border between the two, and the society must be assured of a clear way forward in achieving some level of excellence. The human life must be respected and protected (Young 156). Therefore, the society must be willing to defend the actions, which are likely to lead to death in the subject of controversy in the law.
As an error, euthanasia may not be concluded as an extensively dangerous event. However, it is viewed as a strategy to save an individual from the great pain caused by the disease. However, the value is assured in line with the state of the patient. A point where the patient is in perfect condition does not offer room for euthanasia (Perrett 313). Therefore, such a principle would be highly significant in the legislation of euthanasia in Canada.
Also, Buddhism does not value life as an inherent right. The extreme rarity, as well as preciousness of human death, is often defined in Buddhism. This means that the society has to have exclusive value for human life and individuals must be assured of some level of good health. Therefore, the modern society must be ready to respect and value human life and not support the reckless termination of life (Young 157).
Regarding the above principle, putting an end to life would be an extremely difficult move. It would be an extremely challenging attempt to terminate one’s life without close consideration of the significance of life. In this case, people must value the feelings of their counterparts (Young 51). The legislation in Canada may not be as appealing as most people have thought it to be as it will attract negative elements and attitudes towards life.
Also, the Buddhists believe that death is unavoidable. At a certain point, an individual will have to die. It means that the individual must undergo the process of death and with time experience the daunting element that everyone may fear. However, the argument does not give the people the opportunity to practice voluntary death. Buddhists recognize the value of life and value the fact that people should be allowed to live maximally. Therefore, at no point should an individual be allowed to take away his life.
On the other hand, another party should not have the legal backing to support reckless behaviors of terminating lives. As much as death is assured to occur one day, it should not be facilitated by any individual. It should be a natural process influenced by divine power. Value for the people must be a ruling element in any society. Buddhists respect human life and support the natural ending of life.
The principles outlined by the Buddhist ideas and practices may be useful in the development of legal principles for Canada at a specific time. It means the society must value time and processes in assessing the need for the termination of one’s life. Euthanasia is a condition, which dictates for the elimination of the life of a human being (Young 157). The Buddhist principles may help in shaping the Canada legal backing in some ways.
The recognition that human beings should not kill other human beings is critical in defining the principles of the law. The Buddhists insist that human beings should not kill. This may be extremely controversial to the Canadian law as people may be forced to kill depending on the circumstances (Young 158). For example, when individuals fail to understand the value of human life, killing may be executed without major concern.
Also, the patient may be extremely ill, and the only way to end his pain may be death. However, the society should be willing to protect the people against the values, which would attract controversy (Young 64). It is exceedingly appealing to justify value for life through the affirmation of the law and protection of the existing rights and values for human life.
A situation where life is not of natural good does not guarantee the need for euthanasia. Life must be respected through value linked to the excellent livelihood. The society must embark on the principles, which will ensure that life has been respected. Therefore, it would be extremely wrong for the society to embark on principles, which will make the Canadian legislation difficult to bear. Individuals must be assured of safety under the law.
Therefore, unlike the Buddhists, the Canadian law must treat life to be of a natural good. It is extremely challenging to convince the society to ignore the significance of life. The Canadian law must respect life and offer a clear outline under what circumstances would the individual be denied the right to a remarkable life. Value for life should be respected and individuals must be willing to participate in the processes, which will ensure people have access to life in full measure (Young 160).
Also, the law may not borrow the connection between euthanasia and suicide. As Buddhists refer to suicide as an involuntary action, the law may not agree with its relation to euthanasia. People must understand that euthanasia requires sober mind and it should be a fully informed process. The law should eliminate the element of error as people may innocently kill an individual and link it to euthanasia (Young 71). A strict law will be an outstanding solution to the problem, which is likely to become a social concern.
As such, it is significant to differentiate between the religious views or perspectives on euthanasia and focus on the elements, which would cause exclusive concern. Therefore, it is paramount to value the lives of the people in line with proper legal grounds. The society must be assured of progress in such matters through consideration of the religious views such as among the Buddhists. The law must ensure the rights of the people have been considered. Equally, the most helpful strategies must be used in achieving the specified law, which favors people and values the significance of life.
Works Cited
Perrett, R W. "Buddhism, Euthanasia And The Sanctity Of Life.". Journal Of Medical Ethics, vol 22, no. 5, 1996, pp. 309-313. BMJ.
Snyder, Carrie L. Euthanasia. 1st ed., Detroit, Greenhaven Press, 2006,.
Woodhead, Linda. "What People Really Believe About Euthanasia". Modern Believing, vol 55, no. 1, 2014, pp. 39-48. Liverpool University Press.
Young, Mitchell. Euthanasia. 1st ed., Detroit, Greenhaven Press, 2007,.
Young, Robert. "‘Debating The Morality And Legality Of Medically Assisted Dying’. Critical Notice Of Emily Jackson And John Keown, Debating Euthanasia. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012". Criminal Law And Philosophy, vol 7, no. 1, 2012, pp. 151-160. Springer Nature.
