Beautiful judgment the acquittal of Dr. Daphne Berner . Reassuring, too. In part because of relief for this courageous colleague who tells so frankly and so its history . But this is not the only reason. Some explanations: First, I'm not going to retell the story. If you're in Switzerland you know it, and if you do not know you find here.
Then ask for the frame, it is indeed a case of euthanasia. Or, to put it in Swiss law, of 'killing on request of the victim'. We heard about 'assisted suicide assets, but this term does not help to understand. The difference between assisted suicide (where a person is kills with the help of another person) and euthanasia (or someone kills another at his request) is in the acting person. This ruling reaffirms that difference. And here is euthanasia.
Daphne Berner has been paid, regardless. And not to be a defender of euthanasia law to find that reassuring. Why? First, the decision (re) asserts that suffering may be the reason a necessity. Necessity is the case of force majeure. The situation where a law violation is the only way of averting the emergency a serious and imminent. Conventionally, for example, to save a life. But here, precisely, is the suffering of the patient, not his death, which is to remove the imminent danger. The acquittal is pronounced here despite the fact that a law has been violated, because in these circumstances Daphne Berner "had no alternative but to violate Article 114 of the Penal Code to ensure the physical integrity , psychological, human dignity and the will of the patient " . See the suffering in question as well as reason enough to justify the heavy state of necessity, yes it is reassuring.
Then, focusing on patient request, the ruling remains focused on the autonomy of people sick. It is sometimes feared that the possibility of voluntary death opens the door to ... unintentional death. This ruling clearly does nothing of the sort.
Finally, basing the payment on the state of necessity, this ruling remains focused on the particular case. Euthanasia is, in many countries, sometimes heated debate where defending policy positions too often seems more important than seeing the real difficulties faced by people. In a situation as delicate, it can be tempting to try a case, one way or another, like a pretext case the main reason would be to become a precedent. But if I understand this ruling it, and if I may say so, my respects to the judge. This ruling is not yet known whether it will be maintained since an appeal is still possible. But it's a nice gesture. Prudent, intelligent, balanced. And one reason is precisely that, contrary to what some supporters of the legalization of euthanasia may wish, it does not seem so clear a precedent for cases in which euthanasia would planned. is a decision that the individual can do in a case without it too quickly pulled to the general. In other words, it is human rather than political. This centering
on the specifics of the case is also another reason for the unanimous support Daphne Berner following his acquittal. It tells of a case. One person. No big words. And this differentiates it from too many participants in the debate on voluntary death, which often causes defend first. So yes, of course, the causes are based on principles and it does not protect anyone without principles. But. Facing a real dilemma, where he will sacrifice something that sacrificing yourself first: a person or a principle? The ruling in this case, the primacy of the patient he says.
So now what will happen? Mystery. Will we legalize euthanasia? We will certainly talk about it, anyway. But whatever the outcome of that debate, start with a case like this, well, it also is reassuring.
0 comments:
Post a Comment