The new Scotland Parliament bill to legalize assisted suicide–which I noted in an earlier post, permits disabled or dying teenagers access to “end of life assistance”–clearly includes active mercy killing. Note that since the method of killing isn’t specified or limited, it would seem that any method agreed upon by the suicidal person and the killing actor would be legal, theoretically including being shot in the head, so long as it “allowed a person to die with dignity,” which is in the eye of the dying person, it would seem, and caused “a minimum of distress,” which a bullet to the head would provide. And it is very clear that the actual suicide assister/killer need not be the patient’s physician or, for that matter, even a health care practioner.
The Divisional Court's judgment in the cases of Tony Nicklinson and 'Martin' is awash with statements that it is for parliament alone to legalise assisted dying. However, there is little appetite for statutory legalisation in Westminster. Meanwhile, Tony and Martin are condemned to live against their wishes.
This week, lobbyists for euthanasia appeared to be winning people over to their way of thinking. The 71-year-old physicist Stephen Hawking gave an interview to the BBC in which he was asked whether he supported assisted suicide. “Those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives, and those that help them should be free from prosecution ...” he replied. “But there must be safeguards that the persons concerned genuinely want to end their life and are not being pressurised into it, or having it done without their knowledge and consent.”
Two weeks ago, The New York Times ran a story about a pregnant 33-year-old woman in Texas, Marlise Munoz, whose family has been unable to have her removed from life support, notwithstanding her wishes and those of her family. The hospital has refused to remove Munoz’s life support because of a Texas law that prohibits the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment from a pregnant patient. Political groups have weighed in on the controversy in predictable ways, corresponding to their views regarding abortion. This column will analyze the dilemma as one that is, in some respects, legally and morally distinct from the situation that confronts us in the abortion context. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2014/01/22/excluding-pregnant-women-right-terminate-life-support#sthash.JBLvcBMZ.dpuf