One of the greatest moral and legal controversies facing courts throughout the.
century is whether euthanasia, assisted suicide, should be legalized. This.
pressing global issue is a major concern in many cases involving terminal.
illnesses. There is an ongoing debate of whether the state's interest in.
protecting life should take precedence over an individuals right to a dignified.
life. Euthanasia is assumed by some to be a merciful escape for those suffering.
from a terminal illness. From this perspective, a life should not be continued.
unless it is a wanted life, which suggests that there are some lives not worth.
living. However, the present law preventing assisted suicide is morally,.
legally, and spiritually justified.
The legalization of doctor assisted suicide would imply that the government.
approves of murder under certain circumstances. Therefore, Legalizing euthanasia.
would not accord with society's values and morals. Killing is unconstitutional.
and to allow it would breach the law's moral code. The purpose of banning.
euthanasia is similar to Canada's policy against capital punishment. Both.
objectives are connected to the importance society places in protecting the.
sanctity of human life. The active participation by an individual in the death.
of another is clearly unethical.
By legalizing euthanasia there is a chance that this law can be abused and.
result in the deaths of individuals who did not voluntarily consent to their.
death. In the case of R. v. Latimer, Mr. Latimer assisted in killing his.
daughter Tracy, suffering from a severe form of cerebral palsy, to spare her.
from the agony and chronic pain. Mr. Latimer was sentenced to ten years in.
prison for the murder of his daughter, however if euthanasia would have been.
legal then he could have been pronounced innocent. No one should choose whether.
someone else lives or dies. People may abuse their power by manipulating,.
pressuring, or deciding on behalf of the patient to make the decision to undergo.
