南ア続報：医師会など合法化反対を表明、保健相と法務相も反対スタンス、判事は「死ぬ権利」擁護、今後は憲法裁判所へ？
以下のエントリーの続報。
南アフリカで末期がんの男性に安楽死もPASも認める判決(2015/4/30)
南アフリカ、プレトリアの高等裁判所が
末期がん患者でPAS合法化ロビー活動家のRobin Stransham-Fordさんに
医師の幇助（積極的安楽死または自殺幇助のいずれも可）を受けて死ぬ権利を認めた
判決を受けて、
末期がん患者でPAS合法化ロビー活動家のRobin Stransham-Fordさんに
医師の幇助（積極的安楽死または自殺幇助のいずれも可）を受けて死ぬ権利を認めた
判決を受けて、
南アフリカ医師会(The South Africa Medical Association SAMA)は、
苦痛は生命を終わらせる極端な方法に訴える理由としては説得力を欠いているとして、
医師らに懲戒的処分を避けるため安楽死には関わらないよう警告。
苦痛は生命を終わらせる極端な方法に訴える理由としては説得力を欠いているとして、
医師らに懲戒的処分を避けるため安楽死には関わらないよう警告。
SAMA会長のMzukisi Grootboom医師は、
Notwithstanding the court decision that the medical practitioner who assisted the (patient) would not be held accountable criminally or civilly, Sama cautions its practitioners that the Health Professions Council of SA’s policies remain in force and such activities by practitioners could result in disciplinary sanctions by the (regulatory body).
先般の判決以後も、
南アフリカ医療専門職委員会(the Health Professions Council of SA)の方針は有効であり、
医療職が安楽死を行った場合には同委員会からの懲戒処分を受ける可能性がある、と。
南アフリカ医療専門職委員会(the Health Professions Council of SA)の方針は有効であり、
医療職が安楽死を行った場合には同委員会からの懲戒処分を受ける可能性がある、と。
The Doctors for Life Internationalは、
このたびの判決は「自殺そのものはしないよう呼びかける一方で、
一定の状況下での自殺は受け入れられるとする危険なダブル・スタンダード」として、
今ですら十代の子どもたちの自殺の多さが問題になっているのに、
死ぬ権利が認められると終末期の人など弱者が搾取されるだけでなく
自殺する人が増える、と懸念。
このたびの判決は「自殺そのものはしないよう呼びかける一方で、
一定の状況下での自殺は受け入れられるとする危険なダブル・スタンダード」として、
今ですら十代の子どもたちの自殺の多さが問題になっているのに、
死ぬ権利が認められると終末期の人など弱者が搾取されるだけでなく
自殺する人が増える、と懸念。
Mzukisi Grootboom医師は、
医師は患者が死ぬ手伝いをするのではなく、
医師は患者が死ぬ手伝いをするのではなく、
医師は患者に対する義務があり、その義務は
終末期の患者が良質な緩和ケアにアクセスできるようアドボケイトたることにも及ぶ。
終末期の患者が良質な緩和ケアにアクセスできるようアドボケイトたることにも及ぶ。
またホスピス・緩和ケア協会（the Hospice and Palliative Care Association HPCA）も、
死ぬ権利が合法化されれば濫用が起こり、「緩和ケアサービスの欠落のために、
患者が早まって死なせてもらうリスクが生じる」として
医師による自殺幇助に反対の立場を表明。
死ぬ権利が合法化されれば濫用が起こり、「緩和ケアサービスの欠落のために、
患者が早まって死なせてもらうリスクが生じる」として
医師による自殺幇助に反対の立場を表明。
HPCA会長のLiz Gwyther医師は
自殺幇助は個々の尊厳を支えるわけでも、その人の価値を表現するわけでもない、とし、
自殺幇助は個々の尊厳を支えるわけでも、その人の価値を表現するわけでもない、とし、
記事から発言を抜くと、
This judgment has the potential to give rise to fraud and unethical behaviour among doctors.
Very soon we will start hearing stories of families colluding with doctors to end the life of their loved ones because they wanted to cash in on insurance policies. Some people may even start planning their deaths because they know that their policies are maturing.
We can’t have that situation in South Africa because it would be difficult to police and deal with. To prevent it, we must stop it before it goes any further,
Doctors are human and make mistakes too. They can say a person has a few weeks left to live, based on medical observation, but only God can decide when a person dies,
(as much as doctors played an important role in bringing life to this world,) they should not be given the right to end it because they did not create it in the first place,
When doctors begin their career, they take the Hippocratic Oath and pledge to do all they can to preserve life and not do anything that will intentionally harm or result in the death of a patient. Nowhere in the medical curriculum were doctors taught to kill,
(they were appealing because death was a natural process, and) “no person should be allowed to assist somebody to die without facing the law
It doesn’t matter that science tells you that you have two weeks to live. Doctors should not participate in that dying process. Theirs is to help with palliative care so that a patient dies with dignity,
Life support allows nature to take its course by withholding life-sustaining treatment when doctors have reached medical futility. With euthanasia, doctors kill the patient at the patient’s request.
Very soon we will start hearing stories of families colluding with doctors to end the life of their loved ones because they wanted to cash in on insurance policies. Some people may even start planning their deaths because they know that their policies are maturing.
We can’t have that situation in South Africa because it would be difficult to police and deal with. To prevent it, we must stop it before it goes any further,
Doctors are human and make mistakes too. They can say a person has a few weeks left to live, based on medical observation, but only God can decide when a person dies,
(as much as doctors played an important role in bringing life to this world,) they should not be given the right to end it because they did not create it in the first place,
When doctors begin their career, they take the Hippocratic Oath and pledge to do all they can to preserve life and not do anything that will intentionally harm or result in the death of a patient. Nowhere in the medical curriculum were doctors taught to kill,
(they were appealing because death was a natural process, and) “no person should be allowed to assist somebody to die without facing the law
It doesn’t matter that science tells you that you have two weeks to live. Doctors should not participate in that dying process. Theirs is to help with palliative care so that a patient dies with dignity,
Life support allows nature to take its course by withholding life-sustaining treatment when doctors have reached medical futility. With euthanasia, doctors kill the patient at the patient’s request.
また、以下の記事によると、
（法律的な議論はよく分からないので、大まかな理解ですが）
（法律的な議論はよく分からないので、大まかな理解ですが）
それに対して、
このたびの判決を出したHans Fabricius判事は、
このたびの判決を出したHans Fabricius判事は、
これまではコモン・ローによって禁じられていたために
こうした訴訟を起こすことができなかったが、
今回、自分がこの判決によってcause of action（訴訟を起こすに足りる理由？）を認めた以上、
判決は当人の死によって無効にはならないし、
その他の人が同様の訴訟を起こすことを認めたものであり、
当然、公益にも法正義の利益にも関わってくるとして、
こうした訴訟を起こすことができなかったが、
今回、自分がこの判決によってcause of action（訴訟を起こすに足りる理由？）を認めた以上、
判決は当人の死によって無効にはならないし、
その他の人が同様の訴訟を起こすことを認めたものであり、
当然、公益にも法正義の利益にも関わってくるとして、
たしか、当初の報道では
判事は判決当初、今回の判決はRobin Stransham-Fordにのみ適用されるものだと
言っていたと思うのですが、
判事は判決当初、今回の判決はRobin Stransham-Fordにのみ適用されるものだと
言っていたと思うのですが、
記事から引用箇所を抜くと、
The main argument [by the justice minister] was that the right to life was paramount and that life was sacrosanct. I agree with this general submission.
"The provision safeguards a person's right vis-a-vis the State and society. It cannot mean that an individual is obliged to live, no matter what the quality of his life is.
It is noticeable, unfortunate and disturbing that from a philosophical... and jurisprudential point of view... societies in various parts of the world acquiesce in thousands of deaths caused by weapons of mass destruction.
"They seem to even tolerate a horrendous murder rate in a number of countries, including ours.
"They seem to tolerate the yearly slaughter on our roads because, despite the statistics, thousands of people drive like lunatics on our roads every single day.
"People die of Aids, from malaria by the hundreds and thousands, from hunger, from malnutrition and impure water and insufficient medical facilities.
"The State says that it cannot afford to fulfil all socio-economic demands, but it assumes the power to tell an educated individual of sound mind who is gravely ill and about to die, that he must suffer the indignity of the severe pain, and is not allowed to die in a dignified, quiet manner with the assistance of a medical practitioner."
The irony is, they say, that we are told from childhood to take responsibility for our lives, but when faced with death we are told we may not be responsible for our own passing.
"... One can choose one's education, one's career, one can decide to get married, one can live according to a lifestyle of one's choice, one can consent to medical treatment or one can refuse it, one can have children and one can abort children, one can practice birth control, and one can die on the battlefield of one's country.
"But one cannot decide how to die.
"The choice of a patient such as the present is consistent with an open and democratic society and its values and norms as expressed in the Bill of Rights.
"There is of course no duty to live, and a person can waive his right to life.
"The irony... is that the State sanctions death when it is bad for a person, but denies it when it is good,"
"The provision safeguards a person's right vis-a-vis the State and society. It cannot mean that an individual is obliged to live, no matter what the quality of his life is.
It is noticeable, unfortunate and disturbing that from a philosophical... and jurisprudential point of view... societies in various parts of the world acquiesce in thousands of deaths caused by weapons of mass destruction.
"They seem to even tolerate a horrendous murder rate in a number of countries, including ours.
"They seem to tolerate the yearly slaughter on our roads because, despite the statistics, thousands of people drive like lunatics on our roads every single day.
"People die of Aids, from malaria by the hundreds and thousands, from hunger, from malnutrition and impure water and insufficient medical facilities.
"The State says that it cannot afford to fulfil all socio-economic demands, but it assumes the power to tell an educated individual of sound mind who is gravely ill and about to die, that he must suffer the indignity of the severe pain, and is not allowed to die in a dignified, quiet manner with the assistance of a medical practitioner."
The irony is, they say, that we are told from childhood to take responsibility for our lives, but when faced with death we are told we may not be responsible for our own passing.
"... One can choose one's education, one's career, one can decide to get married, one can live according to a lifestyle of one's choice, one can consent to medical treatment or one can refuse it, one can have children and one can abort children, one can practice birth control, and one can die on the battlefield of one's country.
"But one cannot decide how to die.
"The choice of a patient such as the present is consistent with an open and democratic society and its values and norms as expressed in the Bill of Rights.
"There is of course no duty to live, and a person can waive his right to life.
"The irony... is that the State sanctions death when it is bad for a person, but denies it when it is good,"
