You are on page 1of 3


There are many things we can say about euthanasia, mostly,
that it is unethical, and not our choice, but if we can decide
about every aspect of our lives, what makes our deaths
As Carlos Gaviria Diaz, justice in the Colombian court states.
He who with the best of intentions agrees to put an end to the
sufferings and life of someone who can't bear his sickness
anymore, has not done any right or wrong. He has, actually,
suppressed the suffering on a sorrowful situation, with an act
of bravery, cooperation and kindness.
Put like this, it seems clear that removing someone from his
suffering will be more benevolent than to torture someone or
force him to suffer.
The request to end his life, must be made by the afflicted
person himself, not his family nor the people who take care of
him, and it must be evident for the doctor that the request
was made with adequate thought and must be thoroughly
consistent on its reasons and statements.
As stated by Hans Kung, a German priest on his book Dying
with dignity “As a Christian and theologian I am convinced
that the all-merciful God, who has given men and women
freedom and responsibility for their lives, has also left dying
people the responsibility for making a conscientious decision
about the manner and time of their deaths . . . There should
be no compulsion to die but there should be no compulsion to
live either.” (Kung, pg. 487)
As an example of this, when in October 15, 2014 when the
carter V Canada (AG) decision was made, Barb Gibson-Clifford
cheered in her kitchen. The weight of the decision means a lot
to Barb because she has been fighting uterine cancer for 10
years. She is now Stage 4.
The Supreme Court's monumental ruling promises to give
Barb control over when and how she dies. Facing the prospect

of the last ravages of her disease, she wants the option to end
her life peacefully with the help of a physician. Though this
law will not take effect until February 2016.
The Barbara case is a great example of people under
complete control of their mental capacities, and are still
willing to end their lives, as their suffering is not going to
disperse, no matter what they do, for she was afflicted by a
non-curable disease.
In the other hand, when we have a person who is not capable
of communication, decides to end his or her life, a Living will
should be enough, it has to provide evidence and declare that
the ill person is in favor of this act of benevolence.
Joseph Pozzuolo a professor in the Neuman College stated that
“Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, lifeprolonging care and are effective in providing clear and
convincing evidence that may be necessary under state
statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill.”
A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can
have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a
feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one,
because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly
stated that he did “not want tube feeding or any other
artificial invasive form of nutrition”