Nancy B Euthanasia Case

968 Words4 Pages
citizens of all ages the ability to depict their death, under the circumstances they are suffering from an unbearable terminal illness. The Australian euthanasia laws allow voluntary euthanasia as of July 1996, due to the “Rights of the terminally ill act.” In 1997, euthanasia was renamed illegal as people were abusing the legislation (CBC News). Netherlands have permitted the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide for people since 1984, but the legislation was only past in 2002 (CBC News). The doctors must assure the patient fully comprehends all aspects of his decision and be suffering from a terminal illness containing no signs of future recovery. There have been multiple controversial occurrences that have taken place over Canadian history…show more content…
Nancy decided that she would proceed in staying alive with the use of a respirator for a total of 2 and a half years until she concluded this was no appropriate way one should have to live (Schafer). On January 6, 1992, Jacques Dufour of the Quebec Supreme Court rules in favour of Nancy’s appeal as her death is was due to an underlying disease rather than desire for self inflicting injury. He referred to her death as “ Nature taking its course” (Schafer) This case influenced the government to pass the legislation allowing competent adults to refuse treatment for their disease. On June 4, 1990, retired pathologist Jack Kevorkian assisted the suicide of Janet Adkins, a woman diagnosed with early alzheimer disease as Michigan contained no laws prohibiting assisted suicide, commencing his label as “ Doctor Death.” His next public act of assisted suicide took place October 23, 1991, when he accompanied the death of two women with multiple sclerosis and another who complained of chronic, severe pelvic pain. Kevorkian openly defied the law but was incapable of having legal action implemented and so was continuously found not guilty ("Profile: 'Dr. Death’"). Kevorkian’s assisted suicides expanded to a vast number of people. At one point of his criminal journey, Kevorkian held a…show more content…
Buddhists are unsupportive of euthanasia and assisted suicide as they contain strong beliefs towards the moral value of human life. If someone is suffering from mental or physical distress, Buddhists insist that it is morally wrong to end their life because it is considered disrespectful to the life that was created (Keown). Catholics are highly against the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide as they believe that God is the only one capable of ending ones life and that life is a beautiful gift that should not be cut short by another human being. However, the church does acknowledge that someone suffering from an illness has the option to refuse life prolonging treatment that will only stretch the life span for a minuscule amount of time. Within the Hindu religion, there are no set regulations regarding euthanasia, although it is said that ending a life early can negatively impact ones karma as the suffering one is enduring is due to an occurrence from the past (Nimbalkar). This means that if you willingly end your own life ignored to end the suffering, it will eventually come back to you. Muslims believe that life is sacred and it is a sin to take a life, therefore opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide. Islam teaches that only God decides whether or not a person shall live, and that suffering may be beneficial as it helps one test their faith (Aramesh and
Open Document