On Thursday the High Court of England and Wales rejected a request by Tony Nicklinson, a sufferer of locked in syndrome, to grant medical professionals immunity from prosecution should they assist him to die. According to the suicide act, it is illegal to aid, abet, procure or assist the suicide of another. Breach of this act will be treated on a par with attempted murder. Due to the severity of Mr Nicklinson's condition, he would be unable to self-administer the substances necessary to bring about his death and they would therefore need to be administered by someone else. Despite the fact that this would be done for benevolent reasons it would, as the law stands, leave the individual administering the drugs open to a charge of murder.
Despite previous court judgements and statements from the director of public prosecution on the subject of assisted suicide, the court decided they did not have the authority to grant immunity. In their judgement, the judges stated that they felt that allowing immunity would exceed their authority. Furthermore, they suggest that such decisions should be taken by Parliament alone.
I have written before on the subject of assisted dying. In the post I was broadly in favour of the concept. I still am. I believe the right to a private and family life should extend to cover the right to have control over one's death. I also feel fairly sure that if I were in a similar condition, I too would want my life to end. That's not to say that I think life with severe disability is not worth living, I'm just not sure I would want to.
However, despite all this, I think the court made the correct decision. The major difference between this case and the cases I wrote about in my previous case is that the individuals in the other cases were capable of killing themselves (albeit with heavy assistance). Here, the individual would need to be killed by another person. Ignoring academic legal arguments for the time being, this is a huge ask.
Colonel Tim Collins in his eve of battle speech correctly said, "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the Mark of Cain upon them.". These words were addressed to the soldiers in his command before they went into battle in the second Iraq war. They are equally true of asking a civilian to take a life in this context.
Taking a life is a huge step. People can train for it and practice all they like however until one does it for real, one has no idea how one will react or even if one will be able to carry out the act. Often it is those who feel most prepared who react worst. Despite being trained to kill and doing so in battle to defend themselves and their comrades, many soldiers who kill in battle go on to suffer terrible mental consequences. Recently a father who killed a burglar while defending his family and his home was acquitted of murder. Despite this, and the fact that the incident was over a year ago, he is still suffering profound psychological consequences and is on medication to try and mitigate their effects.
In this case, a doctor is being asked to knowingly and intentionally kill somebody in a controlled manner. Possibly someone they have grown to know and like. Even though any doctor that did so would be secure in the knowledge that they were following their patient's wishes and ending their suffering it would be a huge psychological burden to bear and one I think few could bear well. Despite my views on ending suffering I'm almost certain I would be unable to do such an act, even if I knew I was following the patient's wishes and acting with the full backing of the law. Is it really fair to ask an individual to take that kind of risk with their psychological well-being?
Even if immunity was granted by the court, I'm not convinced medicine as a whole is mature enough to cope with the concept of assisting death in this manner. Most doctors I know still see their job as a relentless crusade against death, seen as the ultimate failure, rather than the facilitators of quality of life. Admittedly most of the time both can be had but there are increasing circumstances where a choice needs to be made and that choice should be made by the patient. In order for assisting death to become acceptable to the medical profession as a whole, they need to start seeing death as an inevitable consequence of life (and junior doctors) rather than a failing that needs to be delayed almost at all costs.
Even if this mentality was developed, we as a society (as well as the individuals involved) would still be left with the knowledge that they had, or were about to, take a life. The only practical solution I can see at the moment is using a system like the Americans use for executions whereby two sets of syringes are loaded in to an auto-injector.One set contains the lethal chemicals, the other has some placebos. Two doctors simultaneously press the activation buttons triggering both sets of syringes to be injected at once therefore neither know who has administered the fatal cocktail. Although far from fail-safe it would at least, hopefully, ease the consciences of those administering the medicines.
Hopefully a solution satisfactory outcome for all parties will be found soon.
JR
Despite previous court judgements and statements from the director of public prosecution on the subject of assisted suicide, the court decided they did not have the authority to grant immunity. In their judgement, the judges stated that they felt that allowing immunity would exceed their authority. Furthermore, they suggest that such decisions should be taken by Parliament alone.
I have written before on the subject of assisted dying. In the post I was broadly in favour of the concept. I still am. I believe the right to a private and family life should extend to cover the right to have control over one's death. I also feel fairly sure that if I were in a similar condition, I too would want my life to end. That's not to say that I think life with severe disability is not worth living, I'm just not sure I would want to.
However, despite all this, I think the court made the correct decision. The major difference between this case and the cases I wrote about in my previous case is that the individuals in the other cases were capable of killing themselves (albeit with heavy assistance). Here, the individual would need to be killed by another person. Ignoring academic legal arguments for the time being, this is a huge ask.
Colonel Tim Collins in his eve of battle speech correctly said, "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the Mark of Cain upon them.". These words were addressed to the soldiers in his command before they went into battle in the second Iraq war. They are equally true of asking a civilian to take a life in this context.
Taking a life is a huge step. People can train for it and practice all they like however until one does it for real, one has no idea how one will react or even if one will be able to carry out the act. Often it is those who feel most prepared who react worst. Despite being trained to kill and doing so in battle to defend themselves and their comrades, many soldiers who kill in battle go on to suffer terrible mental consequences. Recently a father who killed a burglar while defending his family and his home was acquitted of murder. Despite this, and the fact that the incident was over a year ago, he is still suffering profound psychological consequences and is on medication to try and mitigate their effects.
In this case, a doctor is being asked to knowingly and intentionally kill somebody in a controlled manner. Possibly someone they have grown to know and like. Even though any doctor that did so would be secure in the knowledge that they were following their patient's wishes and ending their suffering it would be a huge psychological burden to bear and one I think few could bear well. Despite my views on ending suffering I'm almost certain I would be unable to do such an act, even if I knew I was following the patient's wishes and acting with the full backing of the law. Is it really fair to ask an individual to take that kind of risk with their psychological well-being?
Even if immunity was granted by the court, I'm not convinced medicine as a whole is mature enough to cope with the concept of assisting death in this manner. Most doctors I know still see their job as a relentless crusade against death, seen as the ultimate failure, rather than the facilitators of quality of life. Admittedly most of the time both can be had but there are increasing circumstances where a choice needs to be made and that choice should be made by the patient. In order for assisting death to become acceptable to the medical profession as a whole, they need to start seeing death as an inevitable consequence of life (and junior doctors) rather than a failing that needs to be delayed almost at all costs.
Even if this mentality was developed, we as a society (as well as the individuals involved) would still be left with the knowledge that they had, or were about to, take a life. The only practical solution I can see at the moment is using a system like the Americans use for executions whereby two sets of syringes are loaded in to an auto-injector.One set contains the lethal chemicals, the other has some placebos. Two doctors simultaneously press the activation buttons triggering both sets of syringes to be injected at once therefore neither know who has administered the fatal cocktail. Although far from fail-safe it would at least, hopefully, ease the consciences of those administering the medicines.
Hopefully a solution satisfactory outcome for all parties will be found soon.
JR
No comments:
Post a Comment