In fact, we can see precisely that outcome in the use of CMA statements by Canadian courts, legislatures and regulators in promulgating and implementing the law legalizing MAID in Canada.
In short, there is no neutral stance on the ethics of MAID but a clear choice to be made as to whether one is for or against it, as the present conflict among Canadian physicians so clearly demonstrates, despite the CMA’s and Dr Blackmer’s desire to whitewash the situation.
The practice of a medical practitioner providing help in ending life of another person is known as “doctor assisted suicide.” Doctor assisted suicide is mostly achieved through a condition contained in a script for using lethal medication.
Many patients that are suffering from terminal illnesses request for life ending procedures when they experience pain, and are faced with the traumatic loss in quality of life.
There is no neutral stance on the ethics of euthanasia: A response to Drs Buchman and Blackmer.* The BMJ has recently published two articles, one by Dr Buchman, a palliative care physician and the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association (1), the other by Dr Blackmer, a physician and vice president of international health at CMA (2) presenting a very positive and benign picture of the implementation of legalized euthanasia in Canada, euphemistically called “Medical Aid in Dying” (MAi D).
As an academic medical ethicist at Mc Gill University in Montreal for nearly four decades and now living and working in Australia, I am concerned that Australian legislatures, which are currently considering whether to legalize euthanasia, might accept the picture presented in these articles, without identifying their deficiencies. Somerville, “Euthanasia is not medical treatment”, British Medical Bulletin 2013; 106: 45–66, 4. Choosing when and how to die: are we ready to perform therapeutic homicide? You will find masters papers on euthanasia being done by online custom writing services.You could be looking for a reliable and legitimate writer to “do my paper on euthanasia”. Euthanasia is a highly debated and, at times, a controversial topic in the society.I call this “taking the white coat off euthanasia”. By embracing euthanasia and assisted suicide as medical treatment the CMA made physician participation an expectation and refusing to provide them became an exception requiring justification. But it is far from the only consideration which needs to be taken into account, even if one does not object to MAID on the most fundamental basis that we should not authorise anyone, let alone doctors, to intentionally inflict death on other human beings. Dr Buchman makes no mention of any such considerations, in particular, risks and harms to the “common good” and society. Origin of the terminology “Euthanasia” is complex and not easy to trace.The interpretation of “good health” may imply that it was either Greeks or Romans who initially used the terminology agreeing on the basic issues.Despite assurances from the CMA leadership, Canadian doctors who object to participation in “therapeutic homicide”(5) now risk discipline and even expulsion from the medical profession. Euthanasia has been rapidly normalized and routinized in Canada at a rate that even one of its strongest advocates, Dr Yves Robert, registrar of the College of Physicians of Quebec has found alarming, in that it has quickly become just another choice of how to die. So, the Canadian Medical Association could have maintained its long-established stance - which reflects almost 2,500 years of medical ethics wisdom - that it is unethical for physicians to participate in MAID, even though it is now legal in Canada. When the cloak of medical approval is absent, the public are much more likely to question the wisdom of legalizing it.