Right to die divides nation

The Supreme Court of Appeal overturning a high court decision allowing terminally ill Advocate Robert Stransham-Ford the right to assisted suicide has received a mixed reaction.

The Supreme Court of Appeal’s (SCA) decision to overturn a high court decision allowing terminally ill advocate Robert Stransham-Ford the right to assisted suicide has met a divided a response.

Those in favour of euthanasia say ending one’s suffering is a human right, but others say it’s the opposite. “It’s not a human right to end your life, even if you are suffering. In all human rights, they talk about the right to life and not the right to die,” chairperson of the Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance Dr Liz Gwyther said. “I am very pleased that the decision was overturned.”

It has also highlighted the need to strengthen palliative care for patients in chronic pain.

Gwyther said pain can be relieved by palliative care. “My concern, however, is there are not enough doctors who are trained in pain management. We need to strengthen that – Hospice has a number of programmes to learn palliative care and it’s available to all doctors.”

In a groundbreaking ruling last year, Judge Hans Fabricius ruled in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria that Stransham-Ford was entitled to be assisted to end his life by a willing and qualified medical doctor, who could either administer a lethal agent or provide him with the necessary agent to administer himself. The judge ordered that the doctor who acceded to Stransham-Ford’s request would not be acting unlawfully and would not be subject to criminal prosecution or disciplinary proceedings by the Health Professions Council.

Stransham-Ford died of natural causes just before the ruling. The case was then appealed in the SCA by the justice and health ministers. The SCA held that the claim ceased to exist once the applicant had died before the order could be granted. The SCA further held that this was an inappropriate case in which to develop the common law of murder and culpable homicide, according to the justice department.

Gwyther said it would have been worrying if the appeal had been lost and a legal precedent on assisted suicide had been set.

“No country should be having a discussion on euthanasia unless palliative care is assured. It’s really important to look at compassionate care, but less than 20% of people can access palliative care. When life is short, each day is precious. And I think this decision shows that we value people and we feel that every person is valuable in society. But we need to offer better care.”

But Dignity SA chairperson Sean Davison was disappointed by the SCA’s decision. “This case seemed very straightforward. It was about a man who was terminally ill and the pain was unbearable. He was requesting to die with dignity. It was a simple request. How can anyone oppose it? This is a human right.”

For Davison, it’s a personal issue. He assisted his mother, Pat, who had been suffering with cancer, to die in New Zealand in 2006, and was arrested in 2010. He was sentenced to five months of house arrest. He also cited the case of late Inkatha Freedom Party MP Mario Oriani-Ambrosini, who had cancer, and shot himself in 2014. “Ambrosini had the best palliative care, but in the final stages he chose to shoot himself in the head. That was terrible, but he wanted to choose his time of death.”

The next step should be to approach the Constitutional Court on the matter, he said, adding: “We will campaign until the law changes.”

Justice Minister Michael Masutha said the department was relieved the SCA had stated the law.