The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starner, has volunteered to write a rulebook on assisted suicide. He should be complimented because he will try to clarify, how he will decide whether he should, or not, order a prosecution based on the 1961 Suicide Act.
The simple fact is that politicians have shirked away from rewriting this act to take into account the changes in the world since the 1961 Act. They have adroitly sidestepped this problem because it could be a vote-loser in an election. All sorts of associations, not to speak of churches and various religious creeds, doctors, nurses, carers, care homes, become virulent on this subject.
Euthanasia covers the grey area where somebody who wants to die needs help because he or she cannot commit suicide. To help someone to die in such a case is technically to aid and abet a murder. To prove that the person in question really does or did want to die is easy when someone can clearly express themselves. There are many cases when terminally ill people cannot express themselves.
It would not be difficult to draft a law which would ensure that the act of euthanasia would not in fact be a murder in disguise. A commitee would need to be formed, probably by the family doctor, to include all the people nearest the patient. The will and all other such documents, medical history etc. should then be submitted to a Judge. The Judge should then appoint independent specialists to investigate and report on the case at a formal public hearing. This would ensure that it is the Patient's will to die, and why.
Is it morally right to prevent someone who is suffering or wants to die to have recourse to Euthanasia ?
No comments:
Post a Comment