MURDERS OF MERCY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22743, 2 December 1935, Page 16

MURDERS OF MERCY

CASE FOR EUTHANASIA YOUNG WIFE KILLS HUSBAND DIES WITH HIM (From Oue Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON, November 0. It is said that one murder inspires others, and that the method employed in the first is often employed in the second and third. Suicide has its fashions as well. Less than a year ago a woman killed her imbecile and helpless son. She was sentenced to be.hanged, but the Home Office not only reprieved her, but released. her. A fortnight ago ga young typist gave an overdose of medinal tablets to her invalid mother. It was proved, however, at the trial that the’ mother actually died from pneumonia, and the daughter was released. Now comes a third case of murder for mercy, but the young wife who tered the poison to her husband elected to die with him.

Thus, the question of the right to kill for the sake of mercy is much before the public. Under the championship of Lord Moynihan, a society has recently been formed to present a Bill to Parliament, making it legal, under elaborate safeguards, to hasten the death of a suffering patient-who has no hope of recovery. A number of medical men of authority, some lawyers, and some divines, are supporting the society, but the churches are certainly united against it, and it may be taken for granted that euthanasia will not' become legal in England for many years yet. In this latest case Michael Stern, a 26-year-old analytical chemist, was in hospital in an advanced stage of tuberculosis. His young wife, who was devoted to him, visited him there. Shortly afterwards he was found unconscious, and did not recover. Mrs Stern collapsed in the hospital corridor and died two days later. As ehe lay dying, Mrs Stern said, “If I saved him an hour’s pain the rest of my life is well lost.” THE FATAL CUP.

Mr Stern, the man’s father, said at the inquest that, in answer to a telephone call, he and Mrs Stern went to the hospital.

“We had some conversation with my son,” he said, “ and then both he and his wife said that they wished me to leave the bedside. He told me that he wished to speak to Bertha alone. I went to the end of the ward.

“ I had spoken to the doctor and had asked him how long ray son was going to live. The doctor said-that his lungs were full of tuberculosis, and he was going to administer oxygen.” Coroner: Did the doctor say it was hopeless,—Mr Stern, in a broken voice; “No hope whatever; only a matter of hours.”

Coroner: Did your daughter-in-law know that—Yes, she also heard it. “ She went away from us,” Mr Stern continued, “ and went into the ward again. I stood talking to the consultant.” Coroner: And she returned to the bed? —Yes. That was after the oxygen was administered.

Did you go back?—Yea. Something in my heart told me that something was wrong, and I went back to the bed. 1 saw at the side of the screen that she was giving him something to drink from an invalid cup. She was holding the cup to his lips. “1 AM COMING WITH. YOU.”

She told me,” said Mr Stern, “ that she was giving him a drink of water ■because his breathing was very hard.” Mr Stern said he saw her approach the bedside. She snatched the cup from his month and drank, and afterwards said; I am poisoned.”

Coroner: She meant she had drunk poison; is that so?—That is correct. Asked what Mrs Stern did then, and whether she was able to walk out, Mr Stern replied: “ I took it for A joke, I did not believe it.”

Mr Stern added that his daughter-in-law lay down after that on the right side of tlie bed, put her arm round her husband’s neck, and said: “My dear pet name), I am coming, with you. You won’t be lonely.”

NOT THE LAW OF ENGLAND. The coroner, in addressing the jury, said:

“ You well know that therp are some doctors who say that when a person is in a hopeless condition, and is suffering from some awful scourge, some means should be suggested whereby they can be put out of their misery. But that is not the law of England to-day.” If the jury were satisfied that there was a pact between husband and wife, and that one lived longer, even for two days, that person who lived was guilty of murder. If the wife in this case had lived she would have been subjected to a charge of murder. “ The' wife was deeply attached to her husband,” continued the coroner. “ She herself was not suffering from any tubercle; she was in good health; but she was willing to end her life although she was a healthy girl, and go with the man for whom she had so much devotion. A WONDERFUL SACRIFICE.

"She made a wonderful sacrifice, we all must admit that. She turned the cup to herself, realising what she had done to her husband, and what she was taking herself. “ She said that there was nothing to live for. She was losing the man she Idved, the man to whom she was so deeply attached, and she was willing to sacrifice her life.

“ She was only just on the threshold of life, only 22, hut she was willing to sacrifice her own life to go with him.” The coroner pointed out that on the Sunday the wife was buoyed up by the idea that her husband.was a little better.

“Then,” he said,, “suddenly to be told that there was. no chance of life—just imagine the impression that that must have had on her. What was her state of mind? Was she distraught? Washer mind unbalanced?

The jury were absent for about 20 minutes. On their return the foreman announced that in the case of Michael Stern the verdict was murder against Bertha Stern, and that in respect of the death of Bertha Stern it was an act of suicide. . > “We are of opinion definitely that she was of unsound mind,” added the foreman. He said they wanted to express their “extraordinary sympathy” to all concerned.

The coroner said lie was sure the remarks of the foreman would be appreciated by all. “It was a wonderful act on the part of that woman,” he added.