RIGHT TO DIE

Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1932, Page 6

RIGHT TO DIE

VICTIMS OF INCURABLE, PAINFUL DISEASES. DOCTOR’S PROPOSAL. It was suggested as a matter of •‘elementary human right,” that incurable patients should he allowed, under certain circumstances, 'to put an end to their misery, in a presidential address given to the lhitish .Society of Medical Officers ol Health recently. The speaker, l)r C. Killick Millard, of Leicester, said that the increased mortality from cancer —a notoriously painful disease —made the time opportune to consider voluntary euthanasia (easy death), and the question of making it legal, subject to proper saleguards.

He had, he said. <lraf +,1/1 11 DID to bring his proposal more witfun the sphere of practical politics. “Our proposition merely is," h" declared, “that individuals who have attained to years of discretion, and who are suffering from an incurable and fatal disease, which usually entails a slow and painful death should he allowed hv law—if they so desire and if they have complied with the requisite conditions —to substitute ior the slow and painful death a quick and painless one.

NOT MERELY MERCY. “This we submit, should lie regarded not merely as an act of mercy, but as a matter of elementary human right. It is difficult to see, if properly safeguarded, that it would he in any way contrary to the highest interests of the community as a whole.”

Dr Millard said that he was aware that this proposition was likely to meet with opposition, in certain quarters, oil so-called moral and religious grounds. That was no proof, however, that it was in any way contrary to true morality, or that it would not ultimately be approved and sanctioned by the enlightened conscience of mankind. Dr Millard outlined a complete procedure which a patient would use when exercising his right to die. “Assuming that the time has come when the applicant, having discussed the matter with those near and dear to him, and with hi s spiritual adviser, decides to act upon his permit, he will send word to the praaetitioner concerned and arrange date and othei details. The procedure for administering euthanasia would he governed by regulations to he made by the Home Secretary or Minister of Health. Vo doubt alternative methods would he approved, and these’ could be varied from time to time as experience made desirable.

THE “LETHAL CUP.” “In the present state of our knowledge the usual method of choice, where the patient was able to swallow, would probably be a lethal (narcotic) draught, which might be given in a special utensil, the ‘lethal cup.’ A •prescribed 'procedure would have to be followed, which would include an express statement by the euthanisor •is to the object of the draught, and a direct question to the applicant as to whether he was quite sure that lie wished to anticipate death. If his answter were in the affirmative the lethal cup would be handed to him or placed within his reach. In cases where the patient was unable to swallow, the lethal dose could be administered hypodermically. “An independent and official witness would need to be present, and only persons of a certain status —e.g., magistrates, clergymen, solicitors, or doctors would be eligible for this duty.

“Euthanasia having been acomplish- ‘. J d. the euthanisor would fill and sign necessary certificate on a proscribed. form, and this would then be countersigned by the official witness. This certificate, which would state the fatal disease from which the deceased had suffered, would specify euthanasia is the mode of death, would take the place of the ordinary medical eertifi■ate for purposes of registration of death. CHANGING PUBLIC OPINION. “At first no doubt, the number of persons who would take advantage of the Act- would not be large, possibly very small. By degrees, however, as people became accustomed to the idea and prejudice broke down, and as public opinion came to regard euthanasia as a courageous, rational, and oltcn very altrusistie course, the numbers would increase. “Doubtless, as in the case of cremation, the movement would be helped forward by the example set by a lew outstanding men and women, distinguished ill the spheres of science, philosophy, art, and religion.” Dr Millard described the further procedure and safeguards embodied in the Bill he had drafted, to bo called the Voluntary Euthanasia (Legislation) Bill. They would include: A certificate from an official medical referee that the application bad boon investigated and the case was a proper one to lie granted a permit. Permits to be "ranted bv a court of summary jurisdiction sitting in camera. Ado(|unfe provision would be made for any objection that might be used l v the near relatives. The validity for a certain period ot I lie permits, which could be renewed if desired. There would therefore be no necessity for a permit to fie acted noon at once but it could be held m re-sc-ve in case the pain been me intolerable.