Euthanasia Case Study

In British Columbia, euthanasia is illegal as it is unconstitutional and violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Duffy, 2015). Muckart, Gopalan, Hardcastle, and Hodgson (2014) define euthanasia as the conduct that brings about an easy and painless death for persons suffering from an incurable or painful disease. I maintain that the law should regulate euthanasia as it goes against the Charter and the judicial system should have the power to determine issues relating the euthanasia as legality is under question. I will rely heavily on the narratives from The Common Place of Law supported by secondary sources (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). I will consider each of the possible alternatives of legal consciousness to develop

This can be applied to euthanasia as well. It is illegal in British Columbia to use euthanasia with that being said there are many countries that do offer it (Duffy, 2015). One can appeal to the court decision of banning euthanasia if they meet the requirements. Typically, people who are with the law consider the law to be easily manipulated can be used to their advantage (Ewick & Silbey, 1998).As we see with Nikos Stavros, when expressing his experiences of using the law as an instrument, he says one can be victorious in a situation if they have the necessary filing and time to advance a case (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). He was cheated in a car sale and fought for compensation in court without a lawyer. He was successful due to the fact he was able to address his case clearly with sufficient evidence. This might suggest that there is justice in some situations. In contrast, Michelle Stewart stated that legality is like a game. One goes in knowing they will win or lose and have to know there will be deception.(Ewick & Silbey, 1998). When asked what was her experience like of the court. She responded, “Difficult because I was naive. I really didn’t think people would lie in court” (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). In the end, one has to persuasive and build an account that is clear and efficient. Correlative to the authorization of euthanasia, one has to build a case for it and prove this is necessary and

It would not only get the attention of the judiciary system but the media as well and gain reinforcement from the general public. Small acts of defiance such as boycotts, petitions, class-action law suits, or strikes can be seen as against the law (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). Against the law is another form of legal consciousness; if the law does not work in their favour, they set out to change it (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). For instance, Theodosia Simpson was a black woman who worked as a stemmer in a tobacco company. She failed to get people to sign her petition, so she decided to strike individually and change the pins to her uniform (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). As a result, the company management banned the wearing of pins but did not fire her; this encouraged others to sign the petition(Ewick & Silbey, 1998). In contrast, Michelle states that the law holds legal actors with arbitrary power that actively restrict justice. Michelle’s narrative has also been used with the law as legal consciousness as it is not limited to one view or should be reified. Michelle’s perspective relates to that of individuals wanting the use of euthanasia to be practiced. In many cases, this leads to the procurement of prohibited chemicals to assist with