Politics of End-of-Life Care: Active Euthanasia

Abstract

With new medical advances in technology, there has been a push from the legal, medical and political communities to re-examine the policies of end-of-life-care. End-of-life-care (EOLC) is a term that refers to not only a patient’s final hours of life, but also the medical care of individuals with terminal illnesses or conditions that have become advanced and incurable. For the purpose of this paper, I will be referring to physician-assisted death and active euthanasia as forms of end-of-care. The Politics of End-of –Life-Care: Active Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Death examines the political disjuncture between the evidence presented in favour of active euthanasia (AE), physician-assisted death (PAD) and the current practice of refusing to grant AE and PAD legal status in Canada. It will examine the political dynamics underlying the disjuncture using political pressure groups, constructivism, rational choice, institutionalism and structuralism. There is empirical evidence that demonstrates support for the legalization of AE and PAD. Sixty-seven percent of Canadians support AE /PAD and 80 percent support allowing physicians to assist in AE and PAD (Angus Reid 2012) however, Parliament has not legalized AE/PAD and the CMA has not sanctioned AE /PAD. The two sides of the debate have clearly communicated their arguments. The arguments on each side are strong and have merit. Conversely, the arguments against AE and PAD appear to hold more weight with institutions than with the public. This thesis examines a number of different reasons for why AE/PAD remains illegal in Canada despite society’s widespread support for AE/PAD. The results of the research found no one method explains the disjuncture between the evidence presented in favour of active euthanasia and the current practice of refusing to grant it legal status. However, discursive institutionalism does help elites to generate and communicate the discourse of AE and PAD. It also explains how discourse can also occur from the bottom which results in a new discourse. For example, physicians, politicians, and the public who have deviated from the accepted discourse on AE and PAD can help to create a new discourse regarding AE and PAD policies.