Link 1

This article discusses the recent Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling to allow “those who are severely and irremediably suffering, whether physically or psychologically” the right to autonomy over their own death. The article illustrates both reasons why the court ruled in favour of allowing assisted suicide as well as issues that could arise because of the ruling.

Reasons for the Court’s ruling:

Under the current law, an individual has only the choice of committing suicide or suffering until natural death.  The Court believes it is unfair to ‘create a duty to live”.  The systems already in place in other countries and states have been proven to “work to protect vulnerable people from unwanted death”.

Issues with the ruling:

The interpretation may not be restricted only to the terminally ill.  People with disabilities may also have a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.”

It is unclear what the federal government will do, if anything, in response to this ruling.

This News article is a viable source because it was published by the Globe and Mail, a well-known Canadian news agency and the success of their brand is based on reliable reporting. In addition, the agency has nothing to gain or lose from reporting all the information related to this issue and therefore can give a non-biased assessment.  We chose this article because it is a relevant summary of the Canadian assisted-suicide debate and points out both the pros and cons of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Link 2

This article outlines why doctor assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States.  They argue that a patient suffering from a terminal illness (with a prognosis of less than six months to live) should have the option to end their life.  Such patients currently have the right to end treatment but must then wait for natural causes to take their lives.  The article states that this has a negative impact on both the patient, who may be suffering, as well as their loved ones, who must witness the pain and deterioration.  Additionally, the article addresses the American Medical Association’s argument that it would be difficult to control doctor-assisted suicide.  It points to Oregon’s regulations wherein only a patient of sound mind with less than six months to live may request doctor-assisted suicide.  Such a request will only be considered after two doctors sign off on the process and two witnesses confirm the request.  Then there is a fifteen-day period before the patient can make a required second request to end their life.

 This editorial is a viable source because the arguments proposed were backed by evidence and it was published by an accredited medical school with a strong reputation. We chose this article because it clearly states several reasons why assisted suicide should be an available option for patients who are terminally ill, as well, as how it could actually work. Given that this is an editorial, we did not notice a clear bias in the article because the writer presented both sides of the issue using evidence to refute the opposition’s arguments.

Link 3

This CBC news article outlines the Supreme Court ruling for assisted suicide and how the federal and provincial governments will be proceeding in terms of new legislation. The article further explains what the court ruling will mean for Canadians, including the standards that must be met in order to qualify for assisted dying. The role doctors will play in assisted dying is also discussed and the result was that doctors will not be compelled to assist patients in dying, as each medical college will regulate the decisions. The article aims to inform the readers of the events regarding the Supreme Court ruling and explain what it will mean for their readers, rather than persuade them of their point of view. There is no detectable bias within the article as it provides only fact based information.

Link 4

Dying with Dignity is a Canadian organization that advocates for the rights of patients to choose their course at the end of life. Their article summarizes the arguments of the organization in ten main points. The points that are used to explain and persuade readers to their side of the argument are based on opinion and are backed up by evidence surrounding cases in countries and states that have already legalized assisted dying. The article shows a bias for the legalization of assisted dying as it is written by an organization whose agenda it is to do so.

Link 5

This article makes the argument against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide by describing how it disproportionately affects the poor and people living with disabilities. It discusses the role that money and power play in end-of life decisions, and how assisted suicide is being used by some health care companies and decision-makers to save money by denying treatment. It also discusses that despite the safeguards in place, it has not stopped the mentally ill from obtaining lethal drugs. This article is an editorial with a clear bias against assisted suicide because of the author’s strong personal connection with those living with disabilities. For that reason, the author only recalls the negative effects that would occur from the legalization of assisted suicide, without considering the other side of the argument.  We chose this article to show the opinion of someone who has first-hand experience of how assisted suicide can affect the disabled.

 Link 6

This article lists the reasons why assisted suicide should not be legalized. The article discusses two main arguments opposing physician-assisted suicide: Mental Illness and the controllability of pain. The article also discusses how it is not the pain that causes the need for assisted suicide, but mental illness. Statistics show that 93 percent of those who have committed physician-assisted suicide have been mentally ill at the time and that adequate intervention exists to control 90 to 99 percent of pain. This article is written from a pro-life organization’s point of view that believes strongly against the termination of any life. Therefore, there is a clear bias against the legalization of assisted suicide in this article.  Despite the bias, this article gives a good insight into the opposing argument.

Conclusion