Euthanasia

Legalisation on euthanasia is a topic that is controversial on a global scale. The right of a person to choose whether to live or die is not only a legal issue but also covers the realm of religion and morality. Whilst in many societies it is not morally accepted, there are great arguments from a legal perspective in favour of euthanasia. In recent events there has been great uproar pertaining to the debate on euthanasia since Sean Davidson, a Western Cape University professor, returned to South Africa after serving his sentence in New Zealand for assisting his terminally ill mother to die. He assisted his elderly cancer-stricken mother to die by giving her several crushed morphine tablets with water, resulting in him being charged for attempted murder. He did not deny the charges, and pleaded guilty to helping is mother to permanently end the long years of suffering she endeavoured. Euthanasia has been marked illegal in South Africa, but Sean Davidson is adamant to have this changed. This is a clear indication that our country is now ready to have this controversial debate. Currently he is running a petition in favour of legalising euthanasia in South Africa. Euthanasia has been described in Greek as ‘a Good Death’, although the controversy surrounding this question would prove contrary. S v Hartmann 1975 (3) SA 532 (C) is a leading criminal case in connection to the legality of euthanasia in South Africa. In this case, a doctor helped his father who was suffering increasingly and terminally from secondary cancer. The accused was charged with murder because for legal purposes, he possessed dolus directus as he was fully aware that his actions would ultimately end his father’s life. It was established by the court that consent of the deceased to die is no defence to murder and therefore the accused was convicted of such crime. Despite the conviction of murder, the court accentuated the element of mercy in this particular case. It found that this was indeed a situation where full measure must be taken to mercy in so far as it is not unfair to society. As a result, the accused was to serve one year in prison, of which nearly all was suspended. Religious views show broad consensus about the fact that it is wrong to kill another human being. According to modern secular medical ethics, human life is to be preserved and the role of the physician is not to be an instrument in its destruction. However according to the principle of autonomy, if there is in fact an autonomous decision to die, it must ultimately be respected. The situation is diverse and more controversial where there is an autonomous request to be actively killed. The question then arises as to how a patient can actually come to a conscious and intelligible decision to end their own life when such patient in effect cannot function autonomously. Despite the deep controversy that has long since been existent in societies regarding assisting persons to die, the Constitutional era in South Africa has shown that human rights take precedence over moral beliefs. The question of legalising euthanasia has pushed the envelope forward in persuading us to think about whether we are at that point where euthanasia must be dealt with and for people’s genuine beliefs to take precedence within strict and controlled boundaries. Legalisation of euthanasia seems to be a logical step forward to address individual liberty and offer them the choice regarding a dignified death, but ultimately time will be the only real decider in such a controversial topic.