‘Stopping the pain’: What the law says

Three main arguments in favour of euthanasia are that: (1) it protects and promotes the freedom of the individual to choose death, (ii) compassion protects the assumed “right to die”, and there is family progress.

IWAS confused - I mean absolutely confused - when I came across the question, “When is death?” I have been at the bar for some time, and my training is to ask people questions. I have been asking people several questions in the courtroom. Even at law school, on our pathway to the bar with my friends, learned colleagues at the legal bar, asking legal questions was our passion.

As a lawyer, I understand the distinction between question marks and rhetorical questions. Even simple rhetoric. This is not like Amos the prophet asking rhetorically, “Do two walk together unless they are in agreement? Does a lion roar when there is no prey?”

There are some questions which I want to ask the accuser of my client on our way to the courtroom. There are questions which I feel like asking the accuser during cross-examination. There are questions which I actually ask the accuser. But the best questions are the questions that I ask myself after the accuser has left the witness box.

Such questions give me the answers which assist me to mount a defence for my client.

To sound philosophical, the question that confused me had to be answered in some way. Who will know that there is death unless he or she has tasted the beauty of life?

Or has seen someone facing the inevitability of death? The law then comes in the picture and tries to answer the question for us.

The definition of death involves many aspects: molecular, subcellular, cellular, organ, system, corporeal, mental and spiritual aspects are involved (Vere, 1979:9). I will not attempt to define it in any simple way.

From a value-based system, the Constitution of Zimbabwe protects the right to life.

Put simply, the sanctity of the right to life is protected by the supreme law of our land.

The Constitution even envisages a situation where there is a law that even protects the right of unborn babies.

Because the supreme law protects the right to life, this article argues that the normative framework in the Constitution allows one to mount serious challenges on the legality or otherwise of morally diverse issues such as abortion, assisted suicide and mercy killing.

The present article aims at discussing some viewpoints on “mercy killing”, as understood by some sections of the Zimbabwean society.

An argument may be put thus: Showing mercy can be an inborn thing for every human being. Man strives to control death. The human conscience strives to come to terms with the effects of death.

Seeing a sibling, parent, friend, neighbour or confidante on the death bed creates a lot of emotions. The law does not allow us to “stop the pain”. It’s murder. The gravamen of the offence of murder include intention; framed in the mind - a troubled mind.

Man is a tripartite being in some religious circles.

He has a spirit that has a soul and lives in a body. Most faith groups believe that body minus the spirit equals to death. Death is an enemy for many, and her companions are bad weather, floods, beasts, disease and crime.

Two streams of mercy killing were observed by this writer when he did some media monitoring.

Sickness has been one of the motivating factors that has caused some people to devise gruesome methods of death control, it is no understatement that HIV and AIDS have ravaged mankind and we have also been affected by their effects in one way or another.

The other stream, again understood from gleaning through newspaper articles, relates to animals.

About 630 animals have been euthanised for various reasons ranging from the economic downturn to general concern for the welfare pets - which must not walk aimlessly on the streets. They may be run over by cars or may be abused in some cruel way. This article will not make analysis of this stream in the present article.

Using the first stream, emotions are usually at play.

Family members usually know that a certain family member could be sick in some way. We are affected because of his or her situation. We love them. We all love to hear them tell us confidently that “Love is a powerful word”.

We have been told that “stigma is worse than HIV and AIDS”.

We sometimes want to show our relative that “we understand how they feel”. We avoid reminding each other of the terrible effects of sickness. We hope that we will celebrate life together for a long time.

“Do you understand how I feel mukoma?” This is a question that sends us to some soul-searching exercises. We learn from such questions that whenever we exaggerate situations, we lose. Whenever we underestimate situations, we lose. If we are luckily empowered, we are told that we have to empathise with our sick brother or sister, this needs some basic counselling.

The first stream takes me to what I was reading in some local newspaper which carried a story that was entitled, “HIV+ brother mercy killing: He kills the brother to ‘stop the pain’”. The deceased was born with the disease but was yet to fall ill. His brother used a knife to cut off his throat. Surprisingly, he had told one of his parents of his intentions.

I am no medical doctor, but I have read somewhere that most of the cells which line the gut live for only one or two days. Because they are continually renewed, the tract remains alive. It then contributes to the total life of the person whose gut it is.

If much of the tract died because of corrosive poison, a person might linger on “alive” for a few days, and hypertension and metabolic changes may take his life away. The person might become permanently unresponsive, mentally dead, despite persistence of heart beat and breathing. Read the full article on www. herald.co.zw