Is active euthanasia the next step?

Is active euthanasia the next step?

Context

The right declared in ‘Common Cause’ extends to active euthanasia in certain circumstances

The observation

If passive euthanasia is a guaranteed fundamental right, a rigid “active” versus “passive” euthanasia distinction (APD) is analytically unsustainable

The problem

• It may unjustly deny a recognised fundamental right to those who need assistance to access it
• There is no reasonable basis for negating the right vis-à-vis a patient whose circumstances warrant assistance to exercise it

Example: A UK case: Diane Pretty, while mentally competent, was in the terminal stages of incurable motor neurone disease, which left her completely paralysed from the neck down. Faced with the prospect of progressive suffocation as her breathing and swallowing muscles failed, Pretty required assistance to effectuate a dignified and bearable death in a manner and time of her choosing

Against APD

• The inherent contradictions in APD are the inevitable outcome of fragmented rule-making by courts hamstrung by the lack of a comprehensive and coherent legislative and policy framework
• APD is an elaborate and flawed judicial construct arguably necessitated by overarching policy concerns, namely, potential for abuse by unscrupulous individuals;

Conclusion

These complex issues cannot be addressed without the legalisation and regulation of active euthanasia