Jodhi Rutherford, “Conscientious Participants and the Ethical Dimensions of Medical Support for Legalized Voluntary Euthanasia” (2020) Journal of Medical Ethics. Like many other developments in the Netherlands regarding the regulation of the practice of euthanasia, the Chabot case was used to find arguments leading to contradictory conclusions. Some commentators see the case as evidence that once the law allows physicians to commit physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia, even under strictly and narrowly defined circumstances, the categories of patients who can legally be euthanized will inevitably increase. He claims that the Chabot case is “another step on the slippery slope” towards a situation where euthanasia is tolerated and practiced in a wide range of (even more unacceptable) circumstances, including situations where the patient did not request death. However, due to these social and cultural differences, some aspects of the Dutch approach to regulating this type of euthanasia are often misunderstood. It should therefore be noted that the Dutch approach to this issue has been characterised and/or influenced by(130): Although Ms. Rodriguez lost her claim, she took her own life at home in British Columbia in February 1994. She did so with the help of an unidentified doctor. No charges have been laid against the physician in connection with Ms.
Rodriguez`s death. The Northern Territory likes to think of itself as a border – it is certainly at the forefront of the international euthanasia debate. On May 25, 1995, it became the first jurisdiction in the world to pass laws allowing a physician to end the life of a terminally ill patient at the request of the patient. In certain circumstances, the law allows both medical assistance in dying and active voluntary euthanasia. However, under the Terminally Ill (NT) Rights Act 1995, strict conditions apply: it is neither an unconditional “license to kill” nor an unconditional affirmation of a competent adult patient`s right to euthanasia. Voluntary Assistance in Dying (VDA) is legal in Victoria under the Voluntary Assistance in Dying Act, 2017 (VIC) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The Act provides for and regulates access to VAD which is defined as “the administration of a voluntary euthanasia substance and includes steps reasonably related to such administration.” This article, the first in a series of four, places the euthanasia debate in a broader national and international legal context. This first volume deals with voluntary passive euthanasia – the cessation or interruption of medical treatment at the request of the patient in order to end his life.
The second part deals with active voluntary euthanasia – where a physician, at the request of a patient, actively takes steps to end a patient`s life. This volume also examines the law of the Northern Territory. The latest volumes deal with situations where, without the patient`s consent: medical treatment is interrupted or suspended in order to end the patient`s life; or healthcare professionals are actively taking steps to end the patient`s life. The Netherlands has taken a unique approach to regulating active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. It is often considered a jurisdiction where euthanasia has been decriminalized. This is not an accurate description of the Dutch legal situation. Both voluntary active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are prohibited by the Dutch Penal Code. However, physicians were guaranteed immunity from prosecution as long as they followed a set of “due diligence rules.” The acceptance of active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands is largely due to a unique combination of social and cultural attitudes, including: Although historically it was generally a crime to assist in euthanasia and suicide, prosecutions were rare.
In 2010, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal overturned a manslaughter conviction of a Sydney woman who had previously been convicted of killing her 18-year-old partner with a euthanasia drug. [9] [10] In 2002, relatives and friends who morally supported an elderly woman who had committed suicide were thoroughly investigated by police, but no charges were laid. The Howard government oversaw the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Act 2005, which was passed by federal Parliament in June 2005,[11] criminalizing the use of a telephone, fax, email or Internet transport service to discuss the practicalities of suicidal material. [12] [13] [14] The law, which will remain in force from July 2020, prompted Victoria`s Minister of Health to recommend that physicians discuss voluntary euthanasia exclusively with their patients in person so that they do not break federal law. [14] The Western Australian Euthanasia Act explicitly states that voluntary euthanasia is not suicide. [14] In June 1995, the Queensland Parliament passed the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Qld) repealing the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) and introducing a new Criminal Code. The amending Act replaces article 282 of the old Criminal Code with a new article 82. (45) This new section relieves “a person” of criminal responsibility for the provision of “medical treatment” (defined as “pain relief”) if that provision is made “in good faith and with reasonable care and skill”, is made “in the best interests of the patient” and “having regard to the patient`s condition at the time and all the circumstances”. is appropriate.” The rather vague wording of this section suggests that it may permit the administration of analgesics that shorten a patient`s life in circumstances that would not fall within the “exception” described in English case law. New section 82 appears to authorize the administration of life-shortening pain relief by a physician or other person, even if the intent is clearly to end the patient`s life. (46) It also appears to allow the administration of other `medical treatments` (which do not involve `pain relief`) with the intention of ending the patient`s life, although it is not clear what exactly would be meant by medical treatment within the meaning of the new Article 82.
The new section can therefore be interpreted as constituting “active voluntary euthanasia” (i.e., behaviour falling within situation 3) provided that the actions taken to end the patient`s life are: Twenty-five years ago, two commentators on the medical, legal and ethical implications of euthanasia stated: The Netherlands is the only country where euthanasia [active voluntary] is practiced openly according to formal regulations. Some commentators also describe the Chabot case as a development that tightens restrictions on the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. They argue that the Supreme Court`s decision clarifies the circumstances in which it is unacceptable (as well as the circumstances in which it is acceptable) for a physician to assist a psychiatric patient in committing suicide.