AUTONOMY STRETCHED TOO FAR IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPROVAL OF EUTHANASIA FOR A 27-YEAR-OLD AUTISTIC ALBERTA WOMAN

Abstract

Generally, autonomy refers to a person’s right to whatever he/she believes in. In the medical parlance, patient autonomy is a well-known principle and it is also one of the views of the proponents of euthanasia and/ or assisted suicide in seeking for the legalization of the concept. While opponents believed strongly that a matured and sane person, no matter the sentiment involved, should be allowed to do whatever he/she likes with him/herself, including taking his/her own life. Opponents on the other hand believed life belongs to God and so no one is reserved the right to take or kill such life. More so when one has contributed nothing to the existence of the life sought to be taken. This present case therefore sets the ball in motion wherein a father has gone to court to challenge the basis for making her daughter qualified for euthanasia when the daughter is only mentally incapacitated. the decision of the court in allowing the euthanasia of the autistic woman, despite agreeing that the establishing law was faulty in some direction is examined and the implication of such ruling. This paper will, at the end show that legalizing or allowing euthanasia on the basis of autonomy coupled with denying parents the right to have a say on the issues bothering the life and death of their own is an autonomy stretched too far.