Health Professions Council, NPA reject euthanasia court bid but won't prosecute 'euthanasia' doctors
A doctor Suzanne Walter, 47, a palliative care specialist, and her 71-year-old patient, Diethelm Harck are asking the high court in Johannesburg to order the government to enact legislation that would allow physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Both are terminally ill, Walter with multiple myeloma and Harck with motor neuron disease. The Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), National Prosecutions Authority (NPA) and government are respondents.
One of the grounds of their application is euthanasia is not permitted in a Christian country.
This is an interesting case. But I'm not sure it will succeed, not because of religion, but as the law and more importantly public consensus in most countries applies to doctor-assisted euthanasia.
Wikipedia lists the few countries and states where euthanasia in some form is legal. Ironically, euthanasia is not permitted in, for example, most US states particularly southern where the death penalty is actively pursued. Ditto abortion.
These three – death penalty, abortion and euthanasia – are troubling from a moral philosophy point of view, particularly in western democracies (which is not to say other countries don't also find them contentious). Left-liberals and right take opposing views but usually cannot explain their contradictions, eg pro-death but anti-abortion and euthanasia and vice versa.
In 2017 my mother's life-supporting ventilator (unconscious but brain operation normal) was removed at Cape Town's Groote Schuur Hospital without doctors informing the family and seeking our consent as is required by universal medical guidelines, ethics and law. We viewed it as, in effect, doctor-assisted euthanasia because the result was the same: death.
Both are terminally ill, Walter with multiple myeloma and Harck with motor neuron disease. The Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), National Prosecutions Authority (NPA) and government are respondents.
One of the grounds of their application is euthanasia is not permitted in a Christian country.
This is an interesting case. But I'm not sure it will succeed, not because of religion, but as the law and more importantly public consensus in most countries applies to doctor-assisted euthanasia.
Wikipedia lists the few countries and states where euthanasia in some form is legal. Ironically, euthanasia is not permitted in, for example, most US states particularly southern where the death penalty is actively pursued. Ditto abortion.
These three – death penalty, abortion and euthanasia – are troubling from a moral philosophy point of view, particularly in western democracies (which is not to say other countries don't also find them contentious). Left-liberals and right take opposing views but usually cannot explain their contradictions, eg pro-death but anti-abortion and euthanasia and vice versa.
In 2017 my mother's life-supporting ventilator (unconscious but brain operation normal) was removed at Cape Town's Groote Schuur Hospital without doctors informing the family and seeking our consent as is required by universal medical guidelines, ethics and law. We viewed it as, in effect, doctor-assisted euthanasia because the result was the same: death.
The hospital, Western Cape Health Department and WC government including then premier Helen Zille adamantly refused to investigate while simultaneously defending the doctors' conduct. The NPA said there was no criminal case (culpable homicide) and HPCSA, in rejecting our complaint of unethical practice, said the doctors acted appropriately.
My view is it's not for outside agents, and they have no right, to determine when life must end by actively assisting the patient. It's the patient's life and he/she alone must determine that. The question then is to what extent physicians might assist once the patient has made the decision, assuming he/she has the mental capacity to make it.
I agree with the respondents' view that not allowing euthanasia is consistent with international practice and our laws.
However, the HPCSA's hypocrisy – they say its code of conduct purportedly "protects the public and is in the best interests of patients” – is they refused to consider our complaint because they claimed inter alia our relative was "terminal" [sic] (NB the doctors said she was "improving").
My view is it's not for outside agents, and they have no right, to determine when life must end by actively assisting the patient. It's the patient's life and he/she alone must determine that. The question then is to what extent physicians might assist once the patient has made the decision, assuming he/she has the mental capacity to make it.
I agree with the respondents' view that not allowing euthanasia is consistent with international practice and our laws.
However, the HPCSA's hypocrisy – they say its code of conduct purportedly "protects the public and is in the best interests of patients” – is they refused to consider our complaint because they claimed inter alia our relative was "terminal" [sic] (NB the doctors said she was "improving").
Therefore, confusing matters further, the state’s stance on euthanasia is removed from isolated instances about which they are aware.
Comments
Post a Comment