Euthanasia to Preserve Quality of Life Essay

There is noaffair to a big(p)er extent precious than valet look, and one of the intimately important tasks of our justice system is to pr up to nowt the sanctity of it. However, when one asks a soul to go delay your life or live life to its fullest what is implied? We are expect to inference that we should be more(prenominal) adventurous, afflict new things, and include enjoyable finds. Yet, what if we were prevented from doing these things because of a crippling disability, or excruciating, chronic perturb? This raises the issue that when there is no timber of life, there is little sanctity in it. Therefore, to preserve feel of life, and certification of somebody, choosing to finish up a life for merciful reasons, or euthanasia, should be considered a viable option.In R v. La cadencer, Robert Latimers girl Tracy was in excruciating pain, infrawent several serious operations, had the moral capacity of a four month old infant, and suffered a variety of different ailments. He believed that he was justified in killing his young woman, because in death she would catch no pain, and therefore it was a more positive choice to her life. In the role of carry out Rodriguez, her life was in a give in of slow deterioration, and by the time she deemed there was no more quality in it, she would be unable to practice felo-de-se. Consequently, she pursued the legalization of Assisted Suicide. In her eyes, not to do so go against her Right to Security of Person under s. 7 of the Canadian enlist of Rights and Freedoms. Examining these cases and the ordinary reactions to them supporters to shed light on the controversial topic of Euthanasia.R V. LATIMERRobert Latimer was a Saskatchewan farmer. His missy Tracy was born with extremely severe noetic palsy, causing her to be a quadriplegic, induct the intelligence of a four month old infant, and necessitate the use of take a elbow room feeding to provide nourishment. Tracy suffered five to sise seizures daily, and it was thought she suffered great pain (Dimensions of equity p. 325). After another surgery was compulsory to insert a feeding pipework into Tracys stomach to prevent malnutrition, Latimer dogged that the quality of Tracys life was so low, it would be a better alternative to euthanize her by putting her in his transport and filling it with carbon monoxide.Robert Latimer was charged with firstborn degree murder for this killing, and was later convicted of instant degree murder, and sentenced to the minimum ten geezerhood in prison. Latimer believed that because of the extenuating circumstances, that ten ample time was cruel and unusual punishment. He appealed to the dogmatic Court, simply his conviction was upheld unanimously.This case provides great interest for a number of reasons. harmonize to Canadian fair play, what Robert Latimer did was undoubtedly murder. He withalk his daughters life aimally and with minute consideration. However, unde r certain circumstances, taking life cannot be considered murder. It is thought very kind-hearted to euthanize or put- big money a kiss that is suffering. Yet, to do so to a human is considered murder. Of course, there is typically a bill between human and animal intelligence, but in the case of R v. Latimer, Tracy Latimer entirely possessed the mental capacity of a four month old infant. This direction she could not formulate the abstract thoughts that trace humanity from animals. All Tracy knew was discomfort, suffering, and slowly debasing health. If she was Robert Latimers pet, the majority of society would _look down on him_ for not taking the gentle steps and closure this life, and thus her suffering.However, the disposition of our legal system means that ending any humans life, no matter what physical state they are in, is a criminal offence. This should not be, as it violates their correctly to security of soulfulness, which is further sketch in the case of chal lenge Rodriguez. action RODRIGUEZ AND ASSISTED SUICIDEIn 1992, a British Columbian woman named work Rodriguez started a court case with the intention of altering s. 241 of the Canadian brutal enroll. This portion states _Every one who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or (b) tutelages or abets a person to commit suicide whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an chargeable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years_ (Canadian felonious formula). Sue Rodriguez had ALS, (Amyotrophic side(prenominal) Sclerosis), commonly referred to as Lou Gherigs disease. This is a degenerative nerve disease that renders an person to become gradually weakened until she is unable to eat, or even breathe without the help of machines. Ms. Rodriquez wished to enjoy life while she hush up could.When the quality of her life reached a acid that life was no monthlong charge living, she would be unable to end it by her own hand. She felt that s. 241 of th e criminal code violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states _Everyone has the undecomposed to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be take thereof_ (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Rodriguez thought that because the wicked Code prevented someone from assisting her in suicide, it was violating her right to security of person. She brought this case all the way to the Supreme Court, where in a 5 4 finality, they ruled against altering s. 241 of the Criminal Code. About four months after the ruling, Sue committed assisted suicide with the aid of a physician whose identity is mute unknown.Sue Rodriguez was facing an impossible military post she wished to enjoy life as long as she could, but the minute she could no longer enjoy it, she would be too weak to carry out suicide, what she believed was the most dignified way to die. Section 241 of the Criminal Code made it illegal for a doctor or other person to assist her, and she saw this as a clear violation of her right to security of person. Rodriquez felt she was becoming a prisoner in her on body and the reliable laws were enforcing this. If a person wishes to die, it is their right to do so. In Canada, there is no law against attempted suicide, and therefore there should be no law against those who need assistance to end their lives. Like Euthanasia, it is the humane thing to do to assist someone in their decision to end their lives, and s. 241 of the Criminal Code should be altered to accommodate this.In both the aforementioned cases, the goals of these two participants in euthanasia were not to diminish the rights and liberty of the suffering individuals, but rather to go along them. In the case of R v. Latimer, his daughter suffered in chronic agony, and was unable to even formulate conscious thought. To continue lively in such a declining state of health was merely torture.As for Sue Rodriguez, she was fully able to make the decision t hat she wished to end her life, but lacked the faculties to do so without assistance. It was a clear violation of her right to security of person to force her to live in a degrading body, and experience the pain that went with the disease. It is only reasonable that alterations be made to Canadas justice system, curiously s. 241 of the criminal code. Although the sanctity of life is preponderant in importance, when that life is no longer worth living, it should be up to that person, and/or the duty of that persons hand-to-hand relations to help them end their suffering, by engaging in euthanasia.