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.
The editorial by Ira Byock (1) commenting on the report from van den Block et al (2) correctly says that only 22 cases of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurred (1.3% of all 1690 non-sudden deaths), suggesting that this means these actions ‘occur relatively infrequently’. However, there were a further 26 cases of 'life ending drugs without patient request'. Readers should know that this latter category consists of doctors who answered the same question in the same way as the doctors who are counted as having provided euthanasia or PAS, except that in a subsequent question the doctors indicated that the patient had not asked for euthanasia at the time.
But there is evidence that some clinicians may already be using continuous deep sedation (CDS), as a form of "slow euthanasia". Research suggests use of CDS in Britain is particularly high - accounting for about one in six of all deaths.
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.
Marlisa Tiedemann Dominique Valiquet Law and Government Division Revised 17 July 2008 PRB 07-03E PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICE SERVICE D’INFORMATION ET DE RECHERCHEPARLEMENTAIRES
A public policy think tank, which aims to promote “rational, evidence-based and measured debate” on the subject of assisted dying, has been launched by two members of the House of Lords. Lord Alex Carlile and Baroness Ilora Finlay, co-chairs of Living and Dying Well, have both fervently opposed any change in the law on this issue. Their new organisation is neither “neutral” nor “a campaigning pressure group,” instead, they want to present “hard evidence” to parliament and the public in an objective and informative manner.
Surveys in different countries (e.g. the UK, Belgium and The Netherlands) show a marked recent increase in the incidence of continuous deep sedation at the end of life (CDS). Several hypotheses can be formulated to explain the increasing performance of this practice. In this paper we focus on what we call the ‘natural death’ hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis that acceptance of CDS has spread rapidly because death after CDS can be perceived as a ‘natural’ death by medical practitioners, patients' relatives and patients. We attempt to show that the label ‘natural’ cannot be unproblematically applied to the nature of this end-of-life practice. We argue that the labeling of death following CDS as ‘natural’ death is related to a complex set of mechanisms which facilitate the use of this practice. However, our criticism does not preclude the view that CDS may be clinically and ethically justified in many cases.
The total number of deaths studied was 11,704 of which 1517 involved continuous deep sedation. In Dutch hospitals, CDS was significantly less often provided (11%) compared with hospitals in Flanders (20%) and U.K. (17%). In U.K. home settings, CDS was more common (19%) than in Flanders (10%) or NL (8%). In NL in both settings, CDS more often involved benzodiazepines and lasted less than 24 hours. Physicians in Flanders combined CDS with a decision to provide physician-assisted death more often. Overall, men, younger patients, and patients with malignancies were more likely to receive CDS, although this was not always significant within each country. Conclusion Differences in the prevalence of continuous deep sedation appear to reflect complex legal, cultural, and organizational factors more than differences in patients’ characteristics or clinical profiles. Further
This paper examines the controversial and complex issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). I begin by defining and distinguishing these two terms and explain how they relate to each other. I also describe the medical doctrine of double effect, in which relieving pain comes at the expense of hastening death. Then, I give a brief overview of the common law defense of necessity, which is practically the sole defense available to or used by physicians accused of committing euthanasia or PAS. Finally, I analyze the legal doctrines of euthanasia and PAS, focusing on legislation and cases in the European Union — primarily the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Switzerland — and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana.