May 12, 2013
By ZacharyCugnet BRONZE, Surrey, Other
ZacharyCugnet BRONZE, Surrey, Other
2 articles 0 photos 0 comments

Favorite Quote:
"and at the moment, i swear, we were infinite"

Life is a gift. A gift that we should cherish. We should embrace the life we are given, and live life to its fullest… but what happens when the meaning of life is threatened by some sort of life changing dilemma such as Poliomyelitis (Polio) or Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)? Is it really our decision to overlook the rights of a free Canadian, and prevent them from taking their own life, while hundreds upon thousands of suicides are taken place every day? When it comes down to the rights and freedoms of mankind, we should acknowledge their right to choose their own destiny and we should show mercy to the merciful who choose to end their intolerable suffering.
Many argue that with the legalization of euthanasia, there would be an abundant amount of unjust “killings”, but that’s under false pretenses, for Netherlands was the first place to legalize euthanasia, and over decades of controversy, came up with a set of rules preventing these unjust killings. In the article “Until death do us part: mercy killing in the Netherlands” (Powers 36) it was written that a world with euthanasia, has the potential to succeed, while following a strict set of rules that differ “mercy killing’ from “murder”. Rules such as “The patient must be sound mind and agree to his/her death, or patient must be suffering un-bearable pain” and many others ensuring for a legal way of taking a life.
Is it fair for someone who is dealing with an in-humane amount of suffering, who has pleaded for it to all go away, be deprived of their rights as a free Canadian, and be forced to live a life of un-bearable pain, just because it is considered to be immoral to take a life? Who are we to decide someone else’s fate? Just as some may consider it to be immoral to take a life, others may consider that ignoring their cries for help and forcing them to live a life of misery is immoral and even sadistic. Looking at past cases such as “Sue Rodriquez, or Nancy .B”; both women had a devastating life altering disease and wanted to die, but were physically un-able to kill themselves. Why is it that even after a signed confession asking for assisted suicide (Suicide being legal in Canada) were denied this right of suicide just because they wanted help from their doctor due to the fact they couldn’t do it alone. Looking at the case of Sue Rodriquez, she had to bring her problem to court, and even after making a very heart breaking, very vivid speech about how she wanted to die with dignity and not live the rest of her remaining life treated as a child, to be physically unable to do anything for herself (resource book 33) was once again rejected.

Euthanasia is a very controversial subject, not only because there are many moral dilemmas associated with it, but also how we define its definition. Looking at past cases, we get a better understanding of why this “Mercy Killing” should be available for those who truly want it. Euthanasia also known as “physician aid in dying” or “physician assisted suicide” can be argued on two accounts, a merciful way of dying, or murder. As a free Canadian, don’t we get to choose our own destiny?

The author's comments:
it was a school project. My English teacher said it was outstanding work, and suggested i try this site out. it has always been a touchy subject for me relating to my personal life, so i decided to share it was all of you's.

Similar Articles


This article has 0 comments.


MacMillan Books

Aspiring Writer? Take Our Online Course!