EUTHANASIA

1. EUTHANASIA • GREEK FOR “GOOD DEATH” • PUTS INTO QUESTION THE VALUE OF LIFE. • SANCTITY OF LIFE--CATHOLICISM • END OF LIFE ISSUES, WHAT SORT OF DEATH SHOULD ONE HAVE? • PAIN AND SUFFERING--PALLIATIVE CARE. • DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO SAY A PERSON HAVE A RIGHT TO A GOOOD DEATH?

2. EUTHANASIA • ISSUE OF DIGNITY OR DYING WITH DIGNITY (DEONTOLOGY) • ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. • PRACTICE OF MEDICINE: HIPPOCRATIC OATH

3. EUTHANASIA • BILL C-384, A PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT. • ENDORSED OR LEGALIZED PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE. • MADE CONSENT MANDATORY AND ALLOWED PHYSICIANS TO AID A PERSON TO DIE WITH DIGNITY (TERMINAL ILLNESS AND WITHOUT PROSPECT OF RELIEF FROM PAIN)

4. EUTHANASIA • some distinctions: • voluntary euthanasia • involuntary euthanasia • active euthanasia • passive euthanasia

5. EUTHANASIA • voluntary passive euthanasia: allowing patient to die as wished. • involuntary active euthanasia: actively using substance to kill patient, end their life, without knowledge of their wishes. • involuntary passive: allowing them to dies without knowing their wishes. • voluntary active euthanasia: actively using means to end life as wished by subject.

6. EUTHANASIA • brock and callahan: good to compare and contrast their articles. • most important contrast: killing and allowing to die. • Brock: the distinction is problematic, confused. • callahan: the distinction is all important and clear.

7. EUTHANASIA • Brock and Callahan

8. EUTHANASIA • Brock and Callahan

9. EUTHANASIA • B AND C

10. EUTHANASIA • B AND C:

11. EUTHANASIA • B and C:

12. EUTHANASIA • B and C:

13. EUTHANASIA • B and C:

14. EUTHANASIA • C and B:

15. RODRIGUEZ CASE • ARGUED THAT S. 241 B OF THE CRIMINAL CODE PROHIBITING ASSISTANCE OF SUICIDE, VIOLATED HER RIGHTS AND SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN. • CITED SECTION 7 OF CONSTITUTION: “EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE SECURITY OF PERSON AND THE RIGHT NOT BE DEPRIVED THEREOF EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.”

16. RODRIGUEZ CASE • SOME HIGHLIGHTS: • LAMER: S. 241 B CREATES INEQUALITY; DISABLED PERSONS CANNOT ACCESS OPTION OF SUICIDE. IT IS DISCRIMINATORY. • BUT LAMER FINDS THIS SECTION IS JUSTIFIED BY PARLIAMENT’S OBJECTIVE, THAT OF PROTECTING VULNERABLE.

17. RODRIGUEZ CASE • “IT IS NECESSARY AND JUSTIFIABLE TO THWART THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF SOME PERSONS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE PROTECTION OF ALL THOSE WHO MANY BE VULNERABLE TO BEING PRESSURED OR COERCED INTO COMMITTING SUICIDE.”

18. RODRIGUEZ CASE • Lamer: slippery slope argument is possible. • decriminalization of assisted suicide could increase possibility of homicide of physically disabled. • but he does not buy the rationality of the legislation. • slippery slope cannot justify the exclusion of disabled from self-determination. • parliament is not justified in denying to the disabled the choice of ending life.

19. RODRIGUEZ CASE • sopinka: disagrees with lamer. • while s. 241 b may infringe right to security, it does so consistently with principles of fundamental justice. • infringement on rodriguez is minimal. • reluctant to recognize that law threatens values of life, liberty, etc. in S. 7 of charter.

20. RODRIGUEZ CASE • sopinka: charter asserts value of life, sanctity of life. So no merit to argument that there is in S. 7 an implied right to end one’s life. • while S. 241 b includes right over one’s body, depriving rodriguez this autonomy is justified under fundamental justice. • autonomy and risk of allowing it to be so expansive to include a danger to personhood.

21. RODRIGUEZ CASE • role of courts! • sopinka says proper role is not to legislate or make changes to legislative policy. • appeals to virtue ethics. s. 241 b is legitimate because parliament’s objective of preserving life is just. • while appellant (rodriguez) argues that principles of fundamental justice include human dignity and autonomy, he is not convinced.

22. RODRIGUEZ CASE • fundamental justice: • interests of state and individuals must be balanced and this is role of fundamental justice. • state: protect life and vulnerable. • Individual: have authority over life.

23. RODRIGUEZ CASE • sopinka cont. • no consensus on decriminalizing assisted suicide, unlike consensus against abortion law. • medical ethics: courts are right to recognize individual’s right to refuse treatment. • physicians: applied to them this should not lead us to change interpretation of homicide provision to permit p.a.s.

24. RODRIGUEZ CASE • sopinka identifies a dilemma: • physician in allowing patient to refuse treatment makes a decision akin to decision to perform active, voluntary euthanasia. • palliative care: he recognizes that palliative measures can lead to death. • intention differs though! why are they different? allowing death and causing death! issue of causation.

25. RODRIGUEZ CASE • physicians under guise of palliative care may commit euthanasia, he admits. • this does not amount to same thing. the act is not unjust, he admits. • role of intention: easing pain vs causing death. • in end, impairment of s. rodriguez’s right is minimal and justified. (utilitarianism)

26. RODRIGUEZ CASE • mclachlin: • argues case is not about discrimination but how far state may limit right of person over decision about their body and person. • denial of choice to rodriguez cannot be justified or saved under principle of fundamental justice. (identical to law against abortion)

27. RODRIGUEZ CASE • mclachlin: legislation is arbitrary limitation of self-determination. • legislature in decriminalizing suicide intended not to thwart self-determination. • hence, not consistent with this intent. • inconsistent view of culpability.

28. RODRIGUEZ CASE • culpability is not criminal in such assistance. • state has not shown that such a law has objective importance and outweighs individual liberty. • legislative intention is to prevent abuses, not preventing suicides. • state has not show abuses follow.

29. Keyserlingk and causality • rodriguez case ignores the complexity of criminal liability. • this is based on causality and the majority judgement confuses standard and empirical causality from normative (moral) causality. • criminal liability based on committing an act, not on failing or omitting to do something.

30. Keyserlingk and causality • empirical causality: 5 cases he raises, all indicate that cause of death is act of physician. • i.e. stopping respirator is an “empirical cause.”

31. Keyserlingk and causality • normative causality. does not distinguish acts from omissions. • Good samaritan laws: seinfeld episode. • sopinka’s admission: administering pain medication is the empirical cause of death. • legal issue: physician’s are relieved of criminal culpability only because they do not intend to commit an illegal act. • Kantian aspect: no purpose to act wrong.

32. Keyserlingk and causality • death is still caused. • implication: physician cannot be brought up on criminal charges, though s/he causes death. • if so, one can kill if intention is not unlawful, that is to break a law.

33. latimer case • Krutzen, Rudy. Argues that Latimer did right for right reasons. • Issue of Justice. was it done? • question of punishment only arises if what he did was in fact immoral, Rudy says. • no in-between! if immoral, deserves punishment, if not, does not deserve punishment. • Law must follow morality, not other way.

34. latimer case • Consent. how important is this issue? • pain. Was her pain pointless? no one would consent to be subjected to torture! • compassion as moral principle. Mercy. • real villains: the interest groups. • red herring of the charge: open hunting season on the disabled. Also slippery slope.

35. latimer case • need to draw the line. i.e. what constitutes quality of life? • quality of life is both objective and subjective. • role of emotions. jury is blameworthy. • misplaced compassion and duty. “If law is not changed, caregivers will continue to find themselves in guilt-ridden no-win situations.