No surprises in Assisted Suicide cases

Today the Court of Appeal turned down the appeals brought by the widow of Tony Nicklinson and by Paul Lamb which attempted to overturn a ruling against allowing a doctor or medical professional to help a person to die in certain circumstances. Both of these two men because of paralysis could not perform the act of suicide alone.
In the case of Tony Nicklinson the appeal was made by his widow to allow a person in similar circumstances to her late husband to receive assistance to die from a doctor. Paul Lamb (see earlier article) is the victim of a road accident and would require medical assistance to end his life.
The problem here is unchanged. The two families are asking the courts to do something they are not really empowered to do – that is to change the law created by parliament. Judges don’t really have the power to overrule parliament in this way.
There is no doubt that the cases evoke tremendous amounts of sympathy. In addition to numerous euthanasia groups, the British Humanist Association  backed Mrs Nicklinson and Paul Lamb, while urging parliament to look again at the law.

One new case emerged today – the case of “Martin…” who is seeking help to travel to the suicide clinic Dignitas in Switzerland. Martin’s wife and family respect his wishes to die, but are unwilling to assist him. He is seeking for either a social or health worker to accompany him to the clinic. Such a person falls outside the undertaking which has been given by Kier Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions in this matter. His ruling states that providing there are no suspicious circumstances, a family member of close friend who assists a person to commit suicide by travelling with them to a suicide clinic will not be prosecuted. The Appeal Court judges have asked for clarification from the DPP on the status of a professional person assisting in the same way.

Ethically there are those who on religious or intuitive grounds believe that euthanasia is wrong. You only need to look at the Roman Catholic Church or the writings of Aquinas or Kant.
On the other side some Consequentialists (Utilitarians) and Situation Ethicists may vote the opposite way. In ethics there is not only room for disagreement but also a chance to argue on behalf of an individual. There are even Proportionalists, who would want to say that Natural Law is correct and we should have absolute principles, but where there is a “proportional need” then it is right to disobey. (See Bernard Hoose)

But here we are not dealing with ethics alone, we are dealing with ethical decisions that have been enshrined in law. The law in the UK is decided by parliament and no matter how strongly an individual disagrees with that law, judges, the police and each individual has to obey it – until the law is repealed or changed.

What is happening is that the Nicklinsons and Paul Lamb are attempting to bring matters to public attention by pushing away at the courts. In this way, I think, they are trying to sway public opinion behind their cause, if, or when, parliament again debates the issue of assisted suicide.

BBC report

GM food – Monsanto turns its back on Europe

Monsanto, one of the leading providers of seed for genetically modified crops has turned its back on Europe and has scrapped its plans to GM crops in the European Union. This means that they will no longer be seeking to grow GM maize, soya and sugar beet in Europe.

Apparently governments have conducted scientific tests on Monsanto products and these have all proved positive. The stumbling block seems to be political approval which should follow on from the scientific approval.

It appears that politicians still have reservations about the crops and this has resulted in general foot dragging.

On the other hand it appears that many people have reservations about Monsanto. The company has a rather tarnished track record world wide. In various parts of India crop failures have been blamed on Monsanto seed. These failure have led to a serious rise in suicide among farmers.

In 1999 the company was accused of false advertising in the UK and a similar charge was brought by the Brazilian government in2012.

This led to a world wide protest against Monsanto and genetically modified crops took place on 25^th May 2013. Rallies were held in 52 countries and 436 cities.

The suspicion about GM though seems to focus on the possibility of long-term health hazards arising from GM foods. Monsanto are quick to point out that there is no evidence for this from the trials they have conducted. Their critics such as Fiends of the Earth feel that this evidence is based upon too small a sample for too short a period of time.

It may well be that GM will provide an answer to food shortages world-wide, giving rise to better crops with high yields, but one cannot help but feel that Monsanto, with its determined business plan and its need to maximise profits at all costs have shot themselves in the foot. In terms of priority they clearly see profit as a more important factor than philanthropy. When one is catering for the “poor and hungry of the world” a more balanced and inclusive approach might have achieved the results that everyone wants to see.

 

 

Catholic Ireland allows abortion to be made legal

Sadly it’s not quite as simple as that. It is likely that the abortion bill will allow a woman to have an abortion if her life is threatened or it is considered that she might commit suicide during the pregnancy. In itself this seems a very strange piece of legislation. The result is that no one seems terribly happy with the government’s decision.

Pro Choice Party. Are not happy because it will not allow women to have an abortion, who have been raped, or victims of incest or where there is a strong possibility that the child has severe medical problems.

Pro Life Party. This party has always been strong in Ireland. Partly because of the country’s catholic heritage and partly because of conservative view on sexual matters. There are reports that that death threats have been made to ministers who support the legislation and there is a possibility that these could emanate from people of this persuasion.

Most members of the Dail, the Irish parliament, support the bill. Some have opposed it on the grounds that Ireland as a catholic country should opposed the legislation and others oppose it because it fails to tackle the more common reasons behind requests for a termination of a pregnancy.

What has brought this about?

Savita Halappanavar’s case – but have we been misled over this?

In October 2012 Savita Halappanavar a pregnant woman went into hospital in great pain. It was alleged that she was refused an abortion and died of septicaemia. Her family was given to understand that Ireland was a “Catholic country” and so couldn’t help.

This story has always been a great puzzle to me because my understanding of Irish law and Roman Catholic ethics has been that if the mother’s life is in danger then in an attempt to save her life, a termination might be performed – doctrine of double effect – see your text book for details, but the example always given is an ectopic pregnancy. That was not the case here, but if Savita’s life could have been saved by an abortion, it is not clear why one was not performed.

It is reported that the journalist who broke the story now admits that she was muddled and that there was no request for a termination by Savita. Hospital records show that there was no request for an abortion and that it is misleading to suggest that Savita was killed by her pregnancy. She died from an E-Coli virus that did not respond to antibiotics.

No one is giving up, no one is going home and the fight seems set to continue.

Irish doctors may use the bill as a way of allowing abortions in cases which “sort of fit the bill” and it seems likely that they will push the barriers slowly back towards a more liberal attitude. Pro life supporters held a rally last week with 60,000 protesters. We await the condemnation of the Bishops and others. But the Roman Catholic church in Ireland is much weaker these days in the wake of sex abuse scandals and the increasing secularisation of Irish society.