Can you plz look over this essay. URGENT. it's on the right to die in Canada

1

 CAn you look over it . the teacher said that this essay had to have included 3 main points, the 5w's and h about the topic, we had to explain what violation of the UDHR it was. and what the resolotion is. if my thing makes sense based on that then i hope this helped. thanks. Oh and i might have typos since this is my first draft. heh oops. :P BTW i'm in gr.9 oh and i couldn't tab the start paragraph in the post

 

here it is

 

The Right to Die in Canada

 

“I don’t want to take two months to die and know that my grand daughter has to be watching me lying in a bed, knowing that I’m starving to death or that they’re taking me out slowly like that. I would rather that my grand daughter knows that grandma’s gonna die. We’ve picked a good day, we’ve picked our favorite day, Sunday, the day we go to Hardy Falls, and after this day, the healing can begin. And grandma will be there, just a little to the right of the North Star, watching over you and helping you” This was a quote from Gloria Taylor, a sixty four year old woman who died on October ,4, after losing a long battle with an incurable disease known as ALS (Lou Gehrig ‘s disease). Gloria Taylor was born and raised in Castlegar, B.C. but lived most her life in Westbank, B.C. Yet the reason that Gloria Taylor was famous wasn’t because she suffered From A.L.S. (Lou Gehrig’s disease), but because she was the first person in Canada to ever win the right to die with clarity and dignity when Two decades prior, Rodriguez who also lived in B.C., unsuccessfully fought for the legal right to a physician-assisted death.. She fought for the fact that if she wasn’t given this right, it would be going against her rights, as stated in the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Nevertheless, her victory was already under attack, days after her death. This is because there is a thin line between this being used properly, and it being misused. This is a situation where there are many ways where this right can be misused, but nevertheless there is a solution to this. However, in order for a solution to be made, the facts about the situation must be known.

 

In B.C., 64-year-old Gloria Taylor was fighting with a painful disease with no cure, known as ALS. She knew that her death was inevitable, but that wasn’t what she was afraid of. She had seen the affects of this disease on her dear friend, Peter. Peter died of ALS and his death wasn’t an easy one to witness. Gloria and Peter’s wife had to witness him disintegrate from a healthy man to being only skin and bones. She was scared to die as painfully as he did and have to know that her granddaughter was watching. That’s why, on June 29, 2011, when she heard that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association was resurrecting the right to die case and she called. "It seems to me that you're missing one thing," she told them, "and that's the person who's dying. And I'm it." The B.C. Civil Liberties Association argued that It was cruel to put someone through unnecessary pain and that not allowing the right to die would actually be hurting some people. Also, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association argued that the world had changed since Rodriguez lost her battle. Places such as Oregon, the Netherlands and Belgium had laws allowing physician-assisted death but ensuring safeguards were in place to protect the vulnerable. Finally, on June 15, 2012, the judge that the section of the Criminal Code that prohibits physician-assisted death was unconstitutional. Nevertheless the argument continues even after her death. Why? Because both sides think that one of the two solutions is a violation of the UDHR.

 

Even after Gloria Taylor has died, the argument about the right to die still continues. People are saying that allowing the right to die shouldn’t be in the UDHR because it is inhumane to kill someone just because they are sick because there may be a chance that they may survive. Also there is a chance the person is not mentally sane. On the other hand, when you did not allow the right to die, you would also be in conflict with the right to no torture which states that “nobody has the right o hurt us or torture us.” Firstly, the definition of torture “is to inflict any kind of severe pain or anguish to a certain person or animal”. For example, if someone was dying form an excruciatingly painful disease and the doctors were refusing to end this pain; would not this be inflicting severe pain to a person, thus hurting them and (technically) torturing them? On the other hand, allowing doctors to medically sedate a person who is going to die would be conflicting with the right to life, which states that “everyone has the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.” Also, this can be very easily. Nevertheless there is a solution to this problem.

 

Not only were there solutions to this problem, but some were already taking place. A possible solution, that is already taking place, was to abide by the term used by other countries. For, example, in Belgium physician-assisted death was allowed but there are many safeguards in place to protect the person who is dying. This solution lessens the chances of this right from being misused to hurt another person. Though it was very difficult to completely prevent misuse of any right, because somebody will find a loophole, this was a good alternative. Also, many people argue that the patient may not be in a good enough mental state to decide for themselves and that is why this is wrong. Well, a simple solution to this was that the patient be tested before being allowed the right to be assisted in death. Also, the patient can be checked to make sure that they really are incurably sick or have god reason, to make sure that they are not just suicidal. The government can also talk to the patient to make sure that the place of the assisted suicide is reasonable. There are probably many more solutions to this problem out there, and it was hoped that they will be used to come to a good resolution to this issue.

 

In conclusion, Gloria Taylor was being denied the right to die, but denying her this right conflicted with the right to no torture. In the end she won the right to die, and died surrounded by her loved ones. Sadly, even after her death the argument continues but there are multiple solutions available to the government of Canada. Will a suitable solution be found? Will there be a new right in the UDHR? Well only time can tell, but the citizens of Canada can only hope for the best.

asked Dec 13 '12 at 10:21 Talha Suboor New member

1 answer


0

Tahla, this is beyond the scope of this forum.  We don't provide proofreading, editing, or tutoring services.  Grammarly has various software tools that can be used for these purposes.  The participants here are not employees of Grammarly.  We discuss questions about grammar.  If you have a question about a couple sentences, we can help you to understand the answer. 

 

One tip I can offer at this time: always write to your best ability.  I am sure that you know that I is always capitalized and that sentences start with a capital letter. There are no exceptions to these rules.  It will be to your benefit to avoid lazy practices when you think it doesn't matter.  It always matters, and will never help your cause to appear lazy. 

link comment answered Dec 13 '12 at 13:01 Patty T Grammarly Fellow

Your answer


Write at least 20 characters

Have a question about English grammar, style or vocabulary use? Ask now to get help from Grammarly experts for FREE.