The book strives for as complete and dispassionate a description of the situation as possible and covers in detail: the substantive law applicable to euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, withholding and withdrawing treatment, use of pain relief in potentially lethal doses, terminal sedation, and termination of life without a request (in particular in the case of newborn babies); the process of legal development that has led to the current state of the law; the system of legal control and its operation in practice; and, the results of empirical research concerning actual medical practice.
Proponents of assisted suicide believe support for legalisation is growing among lawmakers and the public around the world. In the past year three names have been added to the list of places which permit it. The BBC's Vincent Dowd investigates whether assisted suicide is set to become even more common.
The Dutch system designed to protect from prosecution doctors who are involved in the mercy killing of severely ill newborn babies who are judged to be suffering unbearably and hopelessly seems to be struggling to gain professional acceptance. The first case is only now being considered, more than two years after the system’s introduction. Research had estimated there should be 15 to 20 such cases a year (New England Journal of Medicine 2005;352:959-62). MPs learnt through parliamentary questions on 18 November that the first report of the decision to end the life of a severely ill baby had been filed in the Netherlands. No more details have been released. The expert committee set up to monitor the system has 12 weeks to decide if the doctor involved followed the correct protocol and whether it should recommend that he or she is not prosecuted.
Objectives: To investigate why physicians label end-of-life acts as either ‘euthanasia/ending of life’ or ‘alleviation of symptoms/palliative or terminal sedation’, and to study the association of such labelling with intended reporting of these acts. Conclusions: Similar cases are not uniformly labelled. However, a physicians’ label is strongly associated with their willingness to report their acts. Differences in how physicians label similar acts impede complete societal control. Further education and debate could enhance the level of agreement about what is physician-assisted dying, and thus should be reported, and what not.
The House of Lords in Purdy forced the DPP to issue offence-specific guidance on assisted suicide, but Jacqueline A Laing argues that the resulting interim policy adopted last September is unconstitutional, discriminatory and illegal. In July 2009, the law lords in R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] All ER (D) 335 required that the DPP publish guidelines for those contemplating assisting another to commit suicide. The DPP produced a consultation paper (23 September 2009) seeking to achieve a public consensus, albeit outside Parliament, on the factors to be taken into account in determining when not to prosecute assisted suicide. Although the consultation exercise is hailed by proponents of legislative change as a democratic, consensus-building and autonomy-enhancing initiative, there is much to suggest that, on the contrary, the guidance is unconstitutional, arbitrary and at odds with human rights law, properly understood.
RAPSI spoke with Penney Lewis, a law professor at King’s College London and expert on end-of-life issues. Lewis explained that “There aren't any current legislative proposals (being considered by the legislature) although debates are held in the House of Commons on the Director of Public Prosecutions' (DPP) policy on assisted suicide.” Lewis is critical of the DPP’s current policy due to its failure to include any reference to a patient’s condition or experience on the basis of discrimination concerns, its preferential treatment of amateur rather than medically assisted suicide, and its focus on the motives of the suspect rather than those of the patient.
Een 61-jarige man uit Lelystad krijgt geen straf voor het helpen bij het beeïndigen van het leven van zijn vrouw eind 2011. De vrouw had haar echtgenoot uitdrukkelijk verzocht om haar te helpen bij haar keuze voor euthanasie. Het bleef bij een poging omdat de man zijn vrouw niet met een kussen wilde laten stikken. De vrouw maakte in mei 2012 zelf alsnog een einde aan haar leven.
This article examines the reporting requirements in four jurisdictions in which assisted dying (euthanasia and/or assisted suicide) is legally regulated: the Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon and Switzerland. These jurisdictions were chosen because each had a substantial amount of empirical evidence available. We assess the available empirical evidence on reporting and what it tells us about the effectiveness of such requirements in encouraging reporting. We also look at the nature of requirements on regulatory bodies to refer cases not meeting the legal criteria to either prosecutorial or disciplinary authorities. We assess the evidence available on the outcomes of reported cases, including the rate of referral and the ultimate disposition of referred cases.