[ad_1]
- A doctor and his patient, both terminally ill, have petitioned the High Court to allow physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted euthanasia.
- The request by Suzanne Walter, a palliative care specialist, and her patient Diethelm Harck, is supported by advocate Bruce Leech and Dr. Paul Rowe, both atheists.
- They argue that Christian values have been imposed through colonial legal systems on people who do not necessarily share these values.
An atheist lawyer and physician have added their voices to a crucial legal challenge to determine whether euthanasia should be legalized in South Africa, GroundUp reported.
The last time the issue was raised in a South African court was in 2015, when near-death lawyer Robert Stransham-Ford filed an urgent request in Pretoria High Court for a doctor to be ordered to had the legal right to give him a lethal. dose to end his life.
It was an individual application, not made in the public interest. Judge Hans Fabricius ruled in his favor, but unbeknownst to the judge, Stansham-Ford died, naturally, two hours before the trial.
The case reached the Supreme Court of Appeals, and the state defendants feared a precedent.
In essence, the SCA ruled that this was not the correct matter to develop common law and that Fabricius’s decision was moot and had no effect since Stansham-Ford had already died.
Now palliative care specialist Dr. Suzanne Walter and her patient Diethelm Harck, who have been diagnosed with terminal illness, hope to persuade Johannesburg High Court Judge Raylene Keightly to develop the law that allows both suicide. physician-assisted euthanasia (PAS) (where the physician prescribes and the patient self-administers) and physician-assisted euthanasia (ECP) (where the physician administers any life-ending medication)
The matter is scheduled for hearing on February 22 and is expected to begin with evidence from Walter, who was diagnosed with multiple myeloma in February 2017, and Harck, who was diagnosed in 2013 with motor neuron disease.
In their allegations, both say they are suffering “symptoms of torture”. While it is not illegal for them to commit suicide, they fear that when the time is right, they will not be able to swallow pills or self-administer medication.
If a doctor willing to help them, he or she would face criminal charges and would also be removed from the list by the Health Professionals Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for unprofessional conduct.
Colonialist legal systems
They both say that the law as it is, and the attitude of the HPCSA, violates their right to dignity and the right to live a life and choose how they want to die.
They want Parliament to enact laws to give effect to their rights to self-determination. In the meantime, they say, the court should rule that any mentally competent person with a terminal illness can go to Superior Court to obtain an order allowing them to undergo PAS or PAE.
Joining his cause as friends of the court are attorney Bruce Leech and Dr. Paul Rowe, both atheists.
In an affidavit filed with the court, Leech says public policy is rooted in Christian ethics inherited through South Africa’s colonialist legal systems, first from Romano-Dutch law and then from English law. So is the HPCSA rule against PAS and PAE.
“Christian values are imposed directly and indirectly on people who do not necessarily share those values. I do not share these beliefs and neither does Dr. Rowe.
“And once this is shown to be the case, the retention of this policy is clearly a limitation imposed on the right under the Constitution to freely exercise one’s religious choice and to freely believe or think in what one chooses.
“The decriminalization of the PAS and the PAE in no way violates the rights of those who do not believe in the PAS and the PAE, based on their own religious and moral convictions.”
The HPCSA, and state respondents, the ministers of health, justice and the national director of the public prosecutor’s office, oppose the request.
The HPCSA says physicians must be willing to abide by its code of conduct “which protects the public and is in the best interest of patients.” It says that the prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide does not offend the Constitution and, if it does, it is justified because it is necessary to protect the right to life and protect and preserve trust in the doctor-patient relationship.
‘Slippery slope’
“Medicine and medical treatment improve pain and suffering for those who have or are in the terminal phase of serious illness. These treatments are available (for Walter and Harck) and progressively available to all people in South Africa.”
State respondents have essentially denied all allegations made and say Walters and Harck are not entitled to the legal relief they seek.
The civic organization Causa de la Justicia, also a friend of the court, also opposes the request. The organization says that doctors should not be allowed to kill a person because no matter the loss of quality of life, every human life has inherent value.
“Departing from the beginning will result in a cultural shift and a slippery slope toward accepting death as a solution to human pain and suffering. We must protect ourselves against this at all costs.”
Keightly has authorized the Center for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) to present evidence.
Supports the right to “die with dignity.”
Attorney Sheena Swemmer said the case raises important constitutional questions about the rights to human dignity, life, health and bodily autonomy. The center will present expert evidence in Canada, the Netherlands, and Oregon in the United States, where assisted dying is legal.
“These specialists are well positioned to outline policies and checks and balances and provide first-hand experience in their implementation. They can also speak more generally about the evolution of medical ethics and the nature of terminal illness and patient care. end of life in general, “he said.
After the evidence from Walters and Harck, the matter is expected to be postponed until the end of this year.
