Woman loses assisted suicide case

Perun

His name struck fear into hearts of men
Staff member
A woman with multiple sclerosis has lost her Appeal Court case to clarify the law on assisted suicide.

I suppose our British friends will be tired of this story, but I feel the need to discuss it. Assisted suicide is by some regarded as the only means to end their life in a dignified manner, while others consider it ruthless murder. The woman in this news story suffers from MS (Multiple Sclerosis), a disease that in the end leaves you immobile and is incurable. As you probably know, Clive Burr also suffers from this disease.

As it is, assisted suicide is legal in six territories, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon, Washington State and Montana, with Quebec being at the threshold.

What is your stance on this? Should it be legalised? Is it murder?
 
I didn't know this is the regular term in English. Is it really?

I call it euthanasia.

edit: ah sorry, here's the difference:

Assisted suicide is active, voluntary euthanasia.

In the Netherlands assisted suicide is called active euthanasia.
 
Assisted suicide is when the woman takes her own life, usually when a doctor sets up something that lets her push the button.  Euthanasia is when the doc presses the button.
 
LooseCannon said:
Assisted suicide is when the woman takes her own life, usually when a doctor sets up something that lets her push the button.  Euthanasia is when the doc presses the button.

In my country there's passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. If I have more time later, I'll try to explain.
 
The Dutch have two definitions for one thing? Funny...
 
Passive euthanasia: No further treatment is being given to a terminal patient.
Active euthanasia: a deadly drug is being applied to the patient.

I guess this last one is called assisted suicide in English. Though to me it feels kind of different when the doctor does it or when the patient does it. When the patient does it, I find the word suicide more logically. Just a thought.

Legal aspects in the Netherlands:

The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:

* the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
* the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
* the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
* there must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
* the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
* the patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)


The doctor must also report the cause of death to the municipal coroner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Burial and Cremation Act. A regional review committee assesses whether a case of termination of life on request or assisted suicide complies with the due care criteria. Depending on its findings, the case will either be closed or, if the conditions are not met brought to the attention of the Public Prosecutor. Finally, the legislation offers an explicit recognition of the validity of a written declaration of will of the patient regarding euthanasia (a "euthanasia directive"). Such declarations can be used when a patient is in a coma or otherwise unable to state if they wish to be euthanized.

Euthanasia remains a criminal offense in cases not meeting the law's specific conditions, with the exception of several situations that are not subject to the restrictions of the law at all, because they are considered normal medical practice:

* stopping or not starting a medically useless (futile) treatment
* stopping or not starting a treatment at the patient's request
* speeding up death as a side-effect of treatment necessary for alleviating serious suffering
Euthanasia of children under the age of 12 remains technically illegal; however, Dr. Eduard Verhagen has documented several cases and, together with colleagues and prosecutors, has developed a protocol to be followed in those cases. Prosecutors will refrain from pressing charges if this Groningen protocol is followed.


My opinion on the subject? When everything has been tried, and someone suffers severly and there's no prospect of recovery, I have no problem with euthanasia. If the rules are being followed well. I think the Dutch rules are very well worked out. The procedures codified in the law had been a convention of the medical community for over twenty years.

My aunt died of M.S. in the mid-1980s. I think she was in her 30s. This was in a time when the disease was more difficult to treat than now. I am not even sure how her life exactly ended but I do remember that, in the final stage, she could only communicate with my uncle by moving her eyes, "saying" yes and no.

By the way, the case about that Italian women who was in a coma for many years, and who wasn't allowed to have euthanasia. This case was much more in the media, wasn't it? I almost wanted to open a topic about it, because of the way Berlusconi dealt with it personally.
 
That is indeed Euthanasia, not assited suicide. Assited Suicide is what LC said earlier, the patient, while still able to move (even if it's just a finger) and think clearly decides to end their life. The doctor sets up the contraption but it's the PATIENT that flips the switch, pushes the button, eats the cheese... whatever.
 
As an addition: I forgot to tell that the law I copied to my previous post legalizes both euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. (also mentioned in previous post).

Just read on some website that

...Germany actually accepts assisted suicide but is against euthanasia, largely because of the issue of patient control. If the patient is performing the action that leads to death it is more likely that this was a voluntary choice for the patient. Thus, there is less risk of abuse.

Still, in my eyes the Dutch law on euthanasia provides enough control to do this.
 
I'm in favour of euthanasia and assisted suicide.  The fact of the matter is that people's right to life should also include a right to death on their own terms when the suffering is just too much.  How is it any different than pulling the plug?  It's hard - my grandfather died when we removed the feeding tube from him, but he was never going to wake up, either.
 
One of my grandmothers died in the same way; feeding tube removal. Same thing. I am in favor of both as well. The laws you laid out for us sound rock solid Foro. I'd have to say that I am in complete agreement with those parameters.
 
I'd like to post an article about the Italian case, which brought a big debate and was big news here as well.
I find it scandalous, the way Berlusconi dealt with it.

Italian coma woman’s death ends Berlusconi’s bid to keep her alive

Senators thwarted in bid to fast-track law to replace force-feeding tubes

Eluana Englaro, the 38-year-old Italian woman who spent 17 years in a permanent vegetative state, died shortly after 8pm last night in a clinic in the city of Udine, frustrating the efforts of Silvio Berlusconi to pass a law that would have kept her alive.

Eluana suffered disastrous brain damage in a car crash in 1992. Her father, Beppino, fought a bitterbattle to have what he said were his daughter’s wishes, not to endure a living death, respected. His voice wracked with emotion, he said last night: “I’ve done everything alone, I’ve brought it to this level alone, and I want to finish alone. I don’t want to talk to anyone. The only thing I ask ofmy true friends is not to come looking for me.” The news exploded in the Senate in Rome, which was in the process of debating a hurriedly cobbled-together law that would have made the termination of Eluana’s force-feeding illegal.

Senators stood for a minute’s silence in her memory, but the pious mood was shattered when a member of the ruling People of Liberty party, Gaetano Quagliariello, shouted: “Eluana is not dead, she’s been murdered!”

The session was suspended amid noisy protests. When senators returned, the Senate leader of the centre- left Democratic Party, Anna Finocchiaro, declared angrily, “The umpteenth act of political outrage on the body of Eluana is under way.”

The Englaro family’s long agony – Beppino’s wife is gravely ill with cancer – appeared to be at an end last November when Italy’s highest court approved the removal of the feeding tubes that have kept Eluana alive all these years.

But those who hoped the torment would soon be over reckoned without the determination of the Vatican’s ultra-conservative hierarchy and their political allies to prevent Italy taking what they regarded as the first step in the direction of legalised euthanasia.

A new campaign was mounted to thwart Beppino Englaro’s intentions by threatening clinics which agreed to supervise the final stages of Eluana’s treatment and the replacement of food with sedatives. La Quiete, a clinic in the north-eastern city of Udine, finally agreed to host the patient, and the final act began four days ago when an ambulance braved violent protests by pro-life activists to bear her to the clinic.

But with Eluana only days away from death, the pace of the drama suddenly accelerated. Mr Berlusconi, despite showing scant interest in the issue before, demanded that the President, Giorgio Napolitano, sign a “decree law”, a sort of emergency diktat making it illegal for the feeding tubes to be removed.

MrNapolitano refused, arguing that the “emergency” was nothing of the sort. Refusing to take no for an answer, Mr Berlusconi vowed that he would push a new law through parliament which would make the cessation of force-feeding illegal in any circumstances.

The tragic drama of an unlucky family was thus transformed into what Mr Berlusconi’s critics charged was a highly opportunistic assault on Italy’s post-war Constitution, threatening to smash the carefully delimited division of powers and hugely expand the prerogatives of the Prime Minister.


The proposed law split parliament along non-partisan lines, with the senior statesman and former prime minister Giulio Andreotti, a devout Catholic, inveighing against state intrusion into the private decisions of families. Last night Demetrio Neri, a member of the National Conference on Medical Ethics, said Mr Berlusconi’s proposed law “would remove the liberty of all to decide when treatment should be suspended, and make living wills” – still illegal in Italy – “impossible.”

Commenting on Eluana’s death, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barrigan, the Vatican’s minister of health, said: “May God forgive those who have done this.”

Eluana’s tale: The right to die

18 January 1992: Eluana Englaro is seriously injured in a car crash and lapses into a coma.

1999: Her father, Beppino, insists it was his daughter’s wish to be allowed to die and takes his fight to the courts. Denied by the Court of Appeal.

April 2005: Supreme Court rules against Mr Englaro’s right-to-die appeal.

16 October 2007: The same court grants a retrial.

July 2008: Milan court rules that Ms Englaro’s coma is medically irreversible, and accepts she stated a preference for dying over being kept alive artificially.

November 2008: The Court of Cassation allows removal of feeding tubes, overruling the health ministry.

3 February 2009: Ms Englaro transferred to private facility in Udine where feeding tubes are removed.

9 February 2009: Eluana dies as politicians in Italian Senate debate her right to do so.
 
This is very similar to that case in Florida - here's how tired I am, it flees my mind.  And very sad, too...it just seems so pointless to let these people exist (not live, living is the wrong word).  :mad:
 
Yes, that was her name. I was living in Florida at the time and all I wanted to do was walk into the Legislature and create carnage. Bastards.
 
I remember being in utter shock that the US government can't balance a budget but goddamn they'll move heaven and earth to stop someone from making a decision they have a legal right to make.
 
I don't recall exactly, but I think the 'hangup' was that the husband was making the call, and the parents tried to stop it.  The person in question, Teri, was completely out of this world.
 
I don't recall exactly, but I think the 'hangup' was that the husband was making the call, and the parents tried to stop it.  The person in question, Teri, was completely out of this world.

That is correct. Once married, the spouse should unquestionably be the one making these calls. I know how difficult it would be to let go as a parent but there comes a point where action needs to be taken.

I remember being in utter shock that the US government can't balance a budget but goddamn they'll move heaven and earth to stop someone from making a decision they have a legal right to make.

Yeah.......sad. Did you enjoy your Presidential visit yesterday LC?
 
I'd agree-- it should be the spouses call.  I think the parents tried to put some ambiguity around why she was there to begin with, stating that the husband could be the cause.  However, without a conviction, the husband is innocent and should have the right to make a call like that when she has no hope of recovery. 
 
Back
Top