Two terminally ill patients‚ have asked the Johannesburg high court to rule that laws banning doctors from assisting terminally ill with suicide are unconstitutional.
Suzanne Walter is a doctor herself and is terminally ill and the other person is Diethelm Harck‚ a retired Johannesburg resident.
The case is also brought by a trust set up to support euthanasia.
The trust and two patients are taking the Minister of Health‚ Minister of Justice‚ the Health Professions Council of SA‚ director of the National Prosecuting Authority and Parliament to court.
Walter and Harck argue that they experience pain and suffering from terminal illness and that suicide in itself is not illegal.
The pair and trust want the law changed‚ so that it is not unlawful for doctors to help the terminally-ill commit suicide‚ by giving a prescription for medicine.
They say doctors would not be allowed to encourage the patients or terminally ill to end their life. The doctors can neither be negligent‚ accidently causing death or having criminal intent and trying to murder the patient.
The court papers state the case is in the interest of all terminally ill people‚ all doctors and in the public interest.
Cape Town resident Robert Stransham-Ford‚ who had terminal cancer‚ in May 2015 asked the court urgently for assistance with his suicide‚ but died hours before the judgment was made allowing him such help.
In his judgment Pretoria High Court Judge Hans Fabricius bemoaned how little Parliament had done to deal with the law change. He said this forced courts to intervene in changing law dealing with the issue that Parliament has failed to address since the Law Reform Commission produced a paper on euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide in 1998.
"In the absence of legislation‚ which is the government’s prerogative‚ any other court will scrupulously scrutinise the facts before it‚ and will determine on a case-by-case basis‚ whether any safeguards against abuse are sufficient‚" Fabricius ruled.
The Supreme Court reversed his judgment and the precedent that had set allowed terminally ill people to approach the courts to be given permission for euthanasia. This was because Stransham-Ford was already dead when the judgment was made.
One argument in the Stransham-Ford appeal made by the Hospice Association was that palliative care‚ which includes psychosocial support and the use of morphine and other drugs to reduce pain and suffering‚ allows the terminally ill to live their final days with dignity so they don't need to use euthanasia.
Walter and Harck's paper state they are mentally competent and understand that palliative treatment that can manage symptoms of illnesses‚ but still want to end their lives.
The pair's papers have cited Parliament as a respondent. This is so the courts can ensure that Parliament enacts laws on physician-assisted suicide if the court finds it is legal.
The case has not been brought as an urgent matter‚ but the lawyer is hopeful it won't take years to resolve.
The plaintiffs' lawyer‚ Reginald Tshabalala‚ said: "We are hoping it won't take years and years. We hope the trial will start within 18 months and any appeal will take a year after completion of the trial."
The trust being involved as plaintiffs means even if one of the terminally-ill plaintiffs passes away during the court case‚ it may continue.
- TimesLIVE
Source: TMG Digital.
Terminally ill doctor and patient seek right in court to euthanasia
Suzanne Walter is a doctor herself and is terminally ill and the other person is Diethelm Harck‚ a retired Johannesburg resident.
The case is also brought by a trust set up to support euthanasia.
The trust and two patients are taking the Minister of Health‚ Minister of Justice‚ the Health Professions Council of SA‚ director of the National Prosecuting Authority and Parliament to court.
Walter and Harck argue that they experience pain and suffering from terminal illness and that suicide in itself is not illegal.
The pair and trust want the law changed‚ so that it is not unlawful for doctors to help the terminally-ill commit suicide‚ by giving a prescription for medicine.
They say doctors would not be allowed to encourage the patients or terminally ill to end their life. The doctors can neither be negligent‚ accidently causing death or having criminal intent and trying to murder the patient.
The court papers state the case is in the interest of all terminally ill people‚ all doctors and in the public interest.
Cape Town resident Robert Stransham-Ford‚ who had terminal cancer‚ in May 2015 asked the court urgently for assistance with his suicide‚ but died hours before the judgment was made allowing him such help.
In his judgment Pretoria High Court Judge Hans Fabricius bemoaned how little Parliament had done to deal with the law change. He said this forced courts to intervene in changing law dealing with the issue that Parliament has failed to address since the Law Reform Commission produced a paper on euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide in 1998.
"In the absence of legislation‚ which is the government’s prerogative‚ any other court will scrupulously scrutinise the facts before it‚ and will determine on a case-by-case basis‚ whether any safeguards against abuse are sufficient‚" Fabricius ruled.
The Supreme Court reversed his judgment and the precedent that had set allowed terminally ill people to approach the courts to be given permission for euthanasia. This was because Stransham-Ford was already dead when the judgment was made.
One argument in the Stransham-Ford appeal made by the Hospice Association was that palliative care‚ which includes psychosocial support and the use of morphine and other drugs to reduce pain and suffering‚ allows the terminally ill to live their final days with dignity so they don't need to use euthanasia.
Walter and Harck's paper state they are mentally competent and understand that palliative treatment that can manage symptoms of illnesses‚ but still want to end their lives.
The pair's papers have cited Parliament as a respondent. This is so the courts can ensure that Parliament enacts laws on physician-assisted suicide if the court finds it is legal.
The case has not been brought as an urgent matter‚ but the lawyer is hopeful it won't take years to resolve.
The plaintiffs' lawyer‚ Reginald Tshabalala‚ said: "We are hoping it won't take years and years. We hope the trial will start within 18 months and any appeal will take a year after completion of the trial."
The trust being involved as plaintiffs means even if one of the terminally-ill plaintiffs passes away during the court case‚ it may continue.
- TimesLIVE
Source: TMG Digital.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos