‘Right to die’ likely to become constitutional issue

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturning a high court decision allowing terminally ill Advocate Robert Stransham-Ford the right to assisted suicide has once again been met by two divides: the right to die, and the right to live, reports The Citizen.

It has also highlighted the need to strengthen palliative care for patients who are in chronic pain.

Those for euthanasia have called it a human right to end one’s suffering, but some against say it’s the opposite.

“In fact, it’s not a human right to end your life, even if you are suffering. In all human rights, they talk about the right to life and not the right to die,” chairperson of the Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance (WPCA) Dr Liz Gwyther said.

“I am very pleased to hear that the decision was overturned.”

Euthanasia was being used a human right, but Gwyther maintained that palliative care can relieve suffering.

“My concern, however, is there are not enough doctors who are trained in pain management. We need to strengthen that – Hospice has a number of programnes to learn palliative care, and it’s available to all doctors.”

In a groundbreaking ruling last year, Judge Hans Fabricius ruled in the High Court in Pretoria that Stransham-Ford was entitled to be assisted by a willing qualified medical doctor to end his life either by the administration of a lethal agent or by providing him with the necessary agent to administer himself.

The judge ordered that the doctor who acceded to Stransham-Ford’s request would not be acting unlawfully and not be subject to criminal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings by the Health Professions’ Council.

He had died hours before the ruling, of natural causes.

The case was then appealed in the SCA by the justice and health ministers.

The SCA held that the claim ceased to exist once the applicant died before the order could be granted. The SCA further held that this was an inappropriate case in which to develop the common law of murder and culpable homicide, said the Justice Department.

Gwyther said it would have been worrying if the appeal had been lost, and in turn set legal precedent on assisted suicide.

“No country should be having a discussion on euthanasia unless palliative care is assured. It’s really important to look at compassionate care – but less than 20% of people can access palliative care.

“When life is short, each day is precious. And I think this decision shows that we value people and that we have a feeling that every person is valuable in society. But we need to offer better care.”

Dignity SA chairperson Sean Sean Davison was dissapointed by the SCA decision.

“This case seemed very straightforward. It was about a man who was terminally ill and the pain was unbearable. He was requesting to die with dignity.

“It was a simple request, so how can anyone oppose it? This is a human right.”

The organisation said yesterday it would take the issue all the way to the Constitutional Court if necessary.

For Davison this was a personal issue. He assisted his mother, Pat, who had been suffering with cancer, to die in New Zealand in 2006, leading to his arrest in 2010. He was sentenced to five months of house arrest in 2011.

Davison also pointed to late politician IFP MP Mario Ambrosini who had suffered cancer and took his own life in 2014 by shooting himself.

“We don’t tend to think about it, but it happens all the time. People are dying terrible deaths. My mother would not have gone on that dreaful hunger strike.

“Mario Ambrosini had the best palliative care. They do a wonderful job, but in in the final stages he chose to shoot himself in the head. That was terrible, but he wanted to choose his time of death.”

The next step, said Davison, should be approaching the Constitutional Court on the matter.

“When you are seeking a law change, be prepeared for the long haul. We wll campaign until the law changes.”

Justice Minister Michael Masutha said his department was relieved the SCA correctly stated the law, “as this decision could have far-reaching implications on the constitutionally entrenched right to life and our common law crimes of murder and culpable homicide”.

– Caxton News Service