by NexDev | September 4, 2015 | End of life, News
On July 21, 2015, a 75-year-old lady organised her assisted suicide in Switzerland, even though she didn’t have any serious health problems. This Englishwoman, a retired nurse living in England, explained to the Sunday Times, a few days before her death: “I want to die having all my senses, and being capable of sorting myself out on my own. I don’t want to be a weight for the people around me that I love. ”
On her blog she explained, “Getting old isn’t fun”, and expressed her wish that her children enjoy their lives without having to worry about her, or feeling duties or responsibilities towards her in her old age to come. She also shared her wish to avoid having one day to occupy a bed indefinitely, costing Britain a fortune in the National Health Service (NHS). In her farewell note, she said she’d always had an organ donor card, which would become superfluous if her planned death allowed the easy removal of organs that could be reused.
Once her decision was made to end her days, she went to a clinic in Basel in Switzerland, a country that permits this act. The association Lifecircle thus organised the suicide of the old lady, even though she was in good health.
The death of Gill Pharaoh sparked off emotional controversy in Switzerland. The Basel Daily paper reveals the debate that was raised, pointing out that the two main Swiss associations for assisted suicide, Exit and Dignitas, would surely not have accepted to perform this act, since the only people who are permitted to have assisted suicide are persons whose vital prognosis is in doubt, or who suffer serious pain or a severe handicap.
The last words of Gill Pharaoh on her blog are a call to the British Government to review their law, which, according to her, would be morally, ethically and financially beneficial.
Her widely publicized suicide occurred a short time before the Assisted Suicide debate scheduled to take place in the British Parliament starting September 11, 2015.
by NexDev | September 4, 2015 | Bioethics, Human embryo research
The European Court for Human Rights (CEDH) declared on August 27, 2015, by a decree of the High court, that the Italian Government could forbid giving human embryos to research which leads to their destruction, because this domain allows for an ample margin of appreciation, in a context where there is no European consensus on this sensitive question about the destiny of donated embryos which are not meant for implantation.
The judgment came following a request by an Italian woman who contested the law forbidding the donation of embryos for scientific research.
In 2002, the claimant, Ademo Parrillo requested in vitro fertility practices for fecundation. Following this procedure, there were 5 embryos frozen, and none of them implanted. In November, 2003, her companion died. Not wishing to continue her project to become pregnant, she decided to donate the embryos to scientific research. After several oral requests, she made her request in writing on December 1st, 2011 to the Conservation Center for embryos who refused, indicating that the research was forbidden and thus sanctioned by Article 13 of law 40 dating from 2004. This Italian law forbids freezing and destruction of embryos. In article 1, the law concerning in vitro fecundation “guarantees the rights of all the persons concerned, including the subject thus conceived”.
Mrs. Parrillo thus went to the CEDH on July 26, 2011. She alleged that “the interdiction, set out by article 134 of Law 40 of February 19, 2004, to give embryos conceived by medically assisted procreation to scientific research, was incompatible with her right to see her private life and her goods respected, both rights which are protected respectively by article 8 of the Convention and by article 1 of the Protocol 1 of the Convention. She also complained about a violation of freedom of expression, guaranteed by article 10 of the Convention, in that scientific research constitutes in her opinion a fundamental aspect. “
The request was accepted on the grounds that article 8 (right to respect of private life and family) from the convention of Human Rights, was applicable in this case under the title “private life”, as the embryos in question contained the genetic material of the claimant, and were thus a part of her identity.
By a vote of 16 against one, the Court reasoned that there was no violation of Article 8 of the convention of Human Rights. On the question of the interference in the privacy of the mother, the Court stated that Italy can legitimately forbid the destruction of human embryos.
On the question of property right, the High Court unanimously rejected the argument on the grounds that “human embryos cannot be reduced to “goods” on which certain people could have a property right”. The law only recognizes 2 categories: the “goods” and the “persons”. So then, observes the ECLJ who intervened in this affair and submitted its’ observations to the court: “logically, human embryos must be persons since they are not goods. The court abstains from saying it, or from denouncing it.”
The court reminded that there is no consensus in embryo research, according to the countries concerned – and several European countries forbid this type of research – and the limits imposed by certain European laws are targeted to prohibit excesses in this field.
by NexDev | September 4, 2015 | Bioethics, Medically Assisted Procreation
The Australian Government is currently carrying out a public consultation on the guidelines for assisted reproduction practices at in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinics, conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). This consultation is being supervised by the Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC) and by a working group specialized in assisted reproduction technology.
In particular the committee was questioned as to whether couples applying for IVF should be allowed to choose the sex of their future child by sorting embryos prior to implantation in the womb. Ian Olver, the NHMRC president is in favour of such practice. This kind of selection is already allowed in Australia but only in cases where a sex-linked genetic illness risks to be transmitted. Now more and more Australians want to decide the sex of their future baby and go to foreign MAP (Medically Assisted Procreation) centers where this is practiced.
For Bob Phelps, member of the ethics and genetics group, this development is questionable. He declared:
“Even if the parents can decide a whole range of things for their children, I don’t think their sex should be a part of those options at the present time. In a larger context, one can see the problems caused in India and in China, for example, where the number of young men is now much greater than the number of young women.”
Apart from this question of sex selection, other questions in the public consultation which ends on September 17th include payment for ovocyte donation, and the creation of a national ovocyte bank.
by NexDev | September 3, 2015 | End of life, Euthanasia and Suicide, News, Palliative care
Two new judiciary initiatives were taken these past few days concerning the future of Vincent Lambert: on the one hand the Procurer of Reims engaged a guardianship judge to appoint a tutor; and on the other hand Vincent’s parents have also gone to court to have their son transferred to another establishment better suited to his needs.
The first initiative was logically expected, since last July 23, when the Reims university hospital (CHU), contrary to all expectations, decided to alert the Attorney of Reims to “demand global protection measures and choose a person who could legally represent” the patient. Given the extreme tensions within the family, it is likely that the guardianship judge, an independent sitting judge, will in the next weeks name an administrator outside the family circle. The scope of his mission will likewise be defined, notably his ability or not, to demand the transfer of Vincent Lambert to another establishment.
This last question is at the heart of the second initiative directed by Vincent’s parents, who consider that there is “a serious failure in the care that should be given to Vincent” – in particular the absence of physiotherapy sessions since the end of 2012. They have repeatedly requested the hospital in Reims to transfer their son “into one of the six establishments that offered to take him in”, which has been refused up till now. Indeed, a patient can legally be transferred to another establishment, but on the condition that he expresses himself his agreement to the transfer, which of course Vincent, in his current state, is not capable of doing. The nomination of a tutor could resolve the situation. However it isn’t sure whether this tutor could or would want to do this. Vincent’s parents therefore want to force the hospital to make the transfer rapidly to a more suitable place for brain-damaged patients.
by NexDev | August 25, 2015 | End of life, Laws, surveys, protagonists, News
The Anscombe Bioethics Center has published in August 2015 a guide to inform the debate about whether to legalize Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia in the United Kingdom.
To and to get a sense of the different issues at stake :
