Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of Euthanasia
No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.
In the medical context, a doctor who, at a patient’s request, gives the patient a lethal injection would be criminally liable.
Under section 241 of the Criminal Code, it is an offense to counsel or to aid suicide, although suicide itself is no longer an offense:
241. Everyone who
counsels a person to commit suicide, or
aids or abets a person to commit suicide,
Whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
• Section 14 (consent to have death inflicted on him)
• Section 45 (Surgical operations)
• Section 215 (Duty of persons to provide necessaries)
• Section 216 (Duty of persons undertaking acts dangerous
• Section 217 (Duty of persons undertaking acts)
• Section 219 (Criminal negligence)
• Section 220 (Causing death by criminal negligence)
• Section 221 (Causing bodily harm by criminal
• Section 222 (Homicide)8
• Section 229 (Murder)
• Section 231 (Classification of murder)
• Section 234 (Manslaughter)
• Section 245 (Administering noxious thing)
• Section 265 and subsequent (the various assault
and bodily harm provisions).
Adult patients must be beyond any hope of recovery and faces continuous, unbearable pain.
The patient must make repeated, clear and reasoned requests to die.
A second physician must be consulted.
The action must be carried out in medically approved manner.
Parental consent is required for patients under 16 years old.
They give patients access to painkiller medication (so that no patient request is the result of their poverty or there pain cannot be treated)
If a person is not in the terminal stages of their illness a third opinion is needed.
Patients must be over eighteen years of age
Assisted suicide is only a crime if the motive is selfish.
Must be videotaped.
The death then must be reported.
Family and friends are then interviewed
If a selfish motive cannot be found there is no crime.
In Europe the Law of euthanasia are generally the same. only three countries have legalized Euthanasia.
Three-in-five Canadians (63%) generally support legalizing euthanasia in Canada, while one-in-four (24%) are opposed.
The highest level of support for legalization is in Quebec (78%) and the lowest is in Alberta (48%).
Men (67%) and respondents over the age of 55 (71%) are more likely to endorse the legalization than women (58%) and respondents aged 18 to 34 (53%).
Canadians believe legalization would give people who are suffering an opportunity to ease their pain (81%) and establish clearer guidelines for doctors to deal with end-of-life decisions (72%).
Considerably fewer respondents think that legalization would leave some without sufficient legal protection (42%) and send the message that the lives of the sick or disabled are less valuable (33%).
One-in-four respondents (26%) believe people who help a person to commit suicide should be prosecuted, while 42 per cent disagree.
Dec 15, 2010
Robert Latimer was convicted in 1994 of second-degree murder
Latimer killed his Daughter by carbon monoxide posioning.
Latimer’s daughter suffered from severe cerebral palsy (he argued he killed her out of compassion.)
Latimer served 10 years.
Latimer was granted partial parole 2 years ago. Last month, he was granted full parole.
Cases And Questions
(Tidbit: People prefer and are more willing to agree with Euthanasia if it is referred to as Euthanasia and not assisted suicide.)
Worries over Legalization
People are worried that the beings such as Dr. Wim Distelmans will be brought about, a man who makes his living on assisting people in dieing. His ideals of who should be euthanized are unjust, making the people of Canada wary of legalization, but they must understand that there will be requirements and regulations on who, why, what where and when euthanasia will be aloud.
Statistics on Belgium's
growth in euthanasia since legalization .
February 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a further appeal
June 1996, the original Crown prosecutor was charged with attempting to obstruct justice through jury tampering.
February 1997, the SCC ordered a new trial for him because of the allegations of jury tampering.
He was again found guilty of second-degree murder in 1997.
His lawyer argued that he should be given a “constitutional exemption,” or that the judge should find the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years to be “cruel and unusual punishment” in the circumstances, and therefore a violation of Latimer’s rights.
December 1, 1997, a decision that suprised many, the judge found that a 10-year sentence would indeed be “grossly disproportionate” to the offence.
Mr. Latimer was sentenced to two years less a day, half served in a provincial jail and half on his farm.
If Euthanasia violates so many section of the charter why are offenders not charged he same?
If it is so wrongful why are these criminals prosecuted differently?
The common law recognizes the right of an adult, competent person to refuse medical treatment or to demand that treatment, once begun, be withdrawn or discontinued. If it is within a terminally ill persons rights to refuse treatment and die on there own terms, how is it any different from euthanasia. (euthanasia just makes it happen faster and reduces the agony of waiting.)
be at least 18 years old;
be either experiencing “severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief” or terminally ill;
have, while appearing to be lucid, made two requests more than 10 days apart stating his or her free and informed wish to die;
have designated in writing someone to act for him or her “with respect to the person who aids him or her to die, and with respect to any medical practitioner” in the event that the individual appears not be lucid.
The bill would also have required that the person who is assisting the death:
be a medical practitioner or be assisted by a medical practitioner;
have received confirmation of the diagnosis from one or two medical practitioners (depending on whether the person assisting the death is a medical practitioner);
be entitled by law to provide health services or be assisted by a team of people so entitled;
act as directed by the individual whose death is assisted; and
provide the coroner with a copy of the diagnosis from one or two medical practitioners (depending on whether the person assisting the death is a medical practitioner).
If new legislation were to be passed on this topic, a number of issues would need to be decided, including:
whether euthanasia, assisted suicide or both should be legalized;
what physical and/or mental states would be required in order for a person to have access to euthanasia or assisted suicide services;
whether minors and/or incompetent people would be allowed to access euthanasia and/or assisted suicide services;
what process would be used to determine a person’s wishes; and
who would be consulted (medical team, experts, family, etc.).
On 12 June 2008, Ms. Lalonde introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-562, It was negatived on 21 April 2010 by a vote of 228 to 59