How To Build A 2 Seater Go Kart

Euthanasia?

Assisted suicide and active euthanasia where it is legal responses are always extreme, last resort, in the face of human tragedies. Do the best we can respond to human suffering with dignity and respect, that in these cases a task profoundly difficult.

is one reason why the testimony of Dr. Daphne Berner is important. He is also courageous. Admirable, even. Serve with a simple honesty the human drama that is lived, to present reality without first seek to defend themselves, while one is accused of euthanasia, this is a rare example and should be welcomed . When I commented on this case live, I have not had time to say it and I wanted to catch it.

Important, this is the case also for the light it throws on some troubling aspects of assisted dying. Lets see. First law. In Switzerland assisted suicide is legal (Art. 115 Swiss Penal Code) . Euthanasia, not (Art. 114 Swiss Penal Code) . Ethically, the distinction is important. In the case of euthanasia, a person kills another. In the case of assisted suicide, no. But at the same time, this case shows how this limit may be tenuous. Because this is how the facts are described:

(...) the woman had chosen to end his days with the help of Exit. But in time, completely paralyzed except for one foot, the patient could not activate itself drip containing the lethal substance.

Daphne Berner then proposed to the young woman the next thing: "When you move your foot, it's as if you open the seam and it is I who will open it." And to clarify: "She seemed very relieved that my proposal is what we did. She managed to say now and she moved her foot and I opened the controller. There. "

It's always hard to tell from the comfortable distance at which one reads. But if I try to be I sincerely believe that in such a case, if I were convinced that it is the firm resolve of the patient, and if I was no alternative to soothe her pain otherwise I might well do the same thing yes. This is not something we say lightly.

Some of the issues is there. If our response to this case is to think of it, put the person who has found in this case jail was something problematic. So obviously any the issue is not there. As an ethical decision may stick to a singular case. A legal decision, no. And it seems that there are at least two ways of seeing this case.

First, we can see a reason to reopen the debate on the legalization of euthanasia. If it is prohibited, it is because of the prohibition of homicide. But we accept that all cases of homicide (including self-defense) can be justified. If the killing is forbidden to ask a crucial boundary-to-human violence, then a case like this should really be banned?

Read the situation and is to begin by admitting guilt, then eventually ask whether and how the standard problem. Legalize euthanasia? This choice would depend on what we can implement to avoid excesses, and the confidence we have that these measures can be effective. But that choice should also depend on the importance we give to situations like this patient. A people who are too limited by the disease in order to commit suicide, and that can not be used much more of an assisted death. These people, it may seem reasonable to present them die more quickly, anticipate, before losing the ability to commit suicide. And this is also a drift.

But there is a second possible reading of this case. Y see an opportunity for questioning on the boundaries between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This limit is important, but it can not be reduced to abstract issues. For here, that operated the mechanism? If instead of saying 'now', the patient had driven the mechanism of the foot, this trial would certainly not take place. Redefined as assisted suicide case where a competent patient, the physician operates, instead of operating the mechanism for killing himself, can it be? In theoretical terms the usual kind of situation is unthinkable. But there are cases where these theoretical limits are clear, this story shows that it is not always the case. On a philosophical level, which is the agent in this story, the proximal cause of death of the patient? It could probably be debate. In political terms, see here a case of assisted suicide could be a way to recognize the legality of the humane decision of Dr. Daphne Berner, without having to tackle head on the issue of euthanasia in our laws. And without either draw a precedent that might include patients incapable of discernment. That would be a solution rather Swiss, finally.