doctor assisted suicide

Advance directives are legal documents that allow patients to spell out their wishes concerning end-of-life care. When medical decisions are required, the document helps to avoid confusion about one's true desires in case of ailing health or incapacity.
But there's little insight into exactly who is seeking help.
Critics of Bill C-14 oppose its requirements that a doctor's help can only be given if death is reasonably foreseeable and the patient is in an advanced state of irreversible decline.
Inmates tend to have more health problems and shorter life spans compared to the general public.
Bill C-14, the government's response to the Carter v. Canada Supreme Court ruling on medical assistance in dying, is generating a lot of criticism from diametrically opposed perspectives -- those who think it too permissive and those who think it is too restrictive.
One would hope that every patient whose angst expresses itself as a wish to die would have access to palliative care expertise, including a thorough and detailed evaluation of the physical, psychosocial, existential and spiritual drivers motivating their request for hastened death.
If physician-hastened death is part of the continuum of medicine, then we must treat it as such. Like any other new treatment or clinical innovation, it demands careful evaluation and methodological rigor, including fixed eligibility criteria, detailed data collection, objective monitoring of outcomes and tracking of adverse effects; the ability to analyze cumulative data, with incremental ramping up entirely based on preceding trial outcomes. We would insist on no less stringency for anything else.
Industry members are willing to lift the standard two-year exemption for suicides and pay out policies on people who end their lives through physician-assisted death.
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."