The Right to Die & The Underlying Business

The Right to Die & The Underlying Business

The proceedings in the case of Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice And Correctional Services and Others (27401/15), a civil suit, in which the applicant sought to exercise his ‘Right to Die’ were watched by interested parties from around the world.

In his application to the Court, the Applicant stated that the doctors had confirmed that he was suffering from terminal cancer. He confirmed that he had more than adequately been informed of his terminal illness, the prognosis of his condition and the treatments and care that were available to him. Extensive information was provided to him by all the doctors who had treated him, he had made his own extensive research into his condition and his request for assisted dying and had considered all that thoroughly. He was still in command of his faculties and he confirmed that he persisted in his decision to end his life with dignity and thus his request as per the Notice of motion. In his view, assisted dying was the only way that he would be released from his eventual unbearable suffering and for him to prevent the imminent intolerable and undignified suffering that was to occur in the future.

So, who were the interested parties watching the proceedings of this landmark case? They run a whole spectrum if my imagination is right.

1. Doctors who have had patients particularly with terminal conditions and might have wanted to exercise this right to die
2. Patients suffering from terminal illnesses
3. Family members with patients on life support or prolonged suffering
4. Hospital management teams
5. Insurance companies
6. Professors of medicine
7. Professors of Law
8. Lawyers
9. Legislators
10. Clergy
11. And of course, the media

There are many countries where patients and or families of patients have requested an end to a life that they felt no longer had any quality to it. This has been met with all manner of opposition and discussion.

Having read the applicant’s submissions and the submissions of all interested parties including five amici curie (friends of the court), on 30 April 2015, Judge H.J. Fabricius, having stated that the relief sought by the applicant was case-dependent and certainly not a precedent for a general uncontrolled ‘free for all’ made the following order:

1. IT IS DECLARED THAT:

1.1 The Applicant is a mentally competent adult;

1.2 The Applicant has freely and voluntarily, and without undue influence requested the Court to authorize that he be assisted in an act of suicide;

1.3 The Applicant is terminally ill and suffering intractably and has a severely curtailed life expectancy of some weeks only;

1.4 The Applicant is entitled to be assisted by a qualified medical doctor, who is willing to do so, to end his life, either by administration of a lethal agent or by providing the Applicant with the necessary lethal agent to administer himself;

1.5 No medical doctor is obliged to accede to the request of the Applicant;

1.6 The medical doctor who accedes to the request of the Applicant shall not be acting unlawfully, and hence, shall not be subject to prosecution by the Fourth Respondent or subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Third Respondent for assisting the Applicant.

2. This order shall not be read as endorsing the proposals of the draft Bill on End of Life as contained in the Law Commission Report of November 1998 (Project 86) as laying down the necessary or only conditions for the entitlement to the assistance of a qualified medical doctor to commit suicide.

3. The common law crimes of murder or culpable homicide in the context of assisted suicide by medical practitioners, insofar as they provide for an absolute prohibition, unjustifiably limit the Applicant’s constitutional rights to human dignity, (S. 10) and freedom to bodily and psychological integrity (S. 12 (2) (b), read with S. 1 and 7), and to that extent are declared to be overbroad and in conflict with the said provisions of the Bill of Rights.

4. Except as stipulated above, the common law crimes of murder and culpable homicide in the context of assisted suicide by medical practitioners are not affected.

As you can well imagine, this ruling of the court created a fertile ground particularly from a creative business point of view. From an imaginative mind, here are some scenarios:

One could, as business owner build a beautiful lodge with great views of nature, create a tropical garden complete with a stream running through the property. The soothing sounds of the water cascading over rocks can be heard from the balconies of the guest rooms.

Your clientele: patients who want to exercise the right to die. They book their stay perhaps accompanied by loved ones, make arrangements with their doctor to visit them there instead of a hospital room.

Here in the serenity and beauty of nature’s best they relax and make peace with their imminent demise. At the appointed hour the doctor administers the injection or whatever manner that is agreed upon and very quietly, perhaps with music playing softly in the background the patient slips from this world into the next.

I can almost see the commercial: “Welcome to Paradise Lodge, South Africa’s premier death destination. Come and die peacefully, surrounded by beauty and elegance. R1950 per room per night for live guests; and R3500 per night refrigerated cubicles for the dearly departed”.

Imagine for a moment, calling to book a room and the reservation assistant asks, “Sir, when are you planning to die?”

Guest’s answer, “Well, I have it planned for the 25th of May.”

She responds, “I am so sorry sir, we are fully booked until the 28th. Could you possibly postpone your date of death?”

Guest: “Hmm, I was really counting on coming in on the 25th and dying the next day but I guess I can live for an extra few days…okay, go ahead and confirm my booking for the 28th that way I will let the doctor know that I will die on the 29th.”

She concludes, “Thank you for your indulgence sir; just one more question, how many are in your party?

He replies, “Well, it’s not exactly a party, now is it?

Assistant: I meant do you have family or a friend accompanying you?

Guest: Oh, I am sorry. Of course, my wife and step-children are coming but I am the only one who will be passing on. I guess you could say everyone else is just passing through.”

Assistant: “We will make the necessary arrangements for your comfort. Sir, once again, thank you for choosing to die with us.”

This might sound morbid to some but to business-minded people out there, well, it is business, isn’t it?

One must also remember that suicide and attempted suicide are not criminal offences. The State allows abortion and so does the medical profession. Birth control measures are implemented universally. Cessation of treatment which hastens or causes death happens on a daily basis no doubt. In the context of conscientious objections, the Applicant said that his rights are sacrosanct to him, which should not be sacrificed on the altar of religious self-righteousness.

Sadly, at the time of writing this, the decision by Judge Fabricius has long been overturned, taking us full circle to where we started: It is a crime to take your life, even if there is no quality left in it. Nonetheless, the debate rages on: Is the right to choose between life and death where one is living with a terminal illness a basic human right?

Categoria:

Artes e Cultura