X-Message-Number: 9253
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 12:14:11 +0100
From: John de Rivaz <>
Subject: Re: euthanasia prosecution

In article: <>  
writes:
> Below is a report on a high-profile case in Canada, in which a 
> physician, who provided an extremely severely suffering patient 
> with Euthanasia was charged with murder.  The case was dismissed 
> by a reasonable judge during a preliminary hearing, but not before 
> she suffered through what must have been an excruciatingly 
> agonizing 15 months of persecution.  
> 
> I do not know if the case will serve as a legal precedent for other 
> similar cases, since it was dismissed in a preliminary hearing. Any 
> legal brains out there?
(del)

I am not a "legal brain" but I have opinions as follows:

It seems to me that prosecutors can bring actions like this with absolutley 
no risk to themselves but obviously the defendants are forced to enter "the 
arena", have a very hard time and have nothing to gain - they are merely 
defending their position. If there was some way defenders had the 
opportunity to hit back *legally* (of course it is open to all to hit back 
illegally with or without justification) then it could redress the balance 
and ensure that prosecutors only took cases which had some absolute (rather 
than legal argument) merit. For example, a reverse of the contingency fee 
arrangement: if they lose, the prosecutors have to pay all the fees they 
have received to the defendant personally, as well as paying the defendant's 
legal fees.

In this particular case there would be merit if the prosecuting authorities 
could clearly show that the deceased had not wanted to be given euthanasia. 
Instead we seem to have had an "occupying army" situation, where both the 
deceased and the defendant were cooperating, but the lawyers came in seeking 
work and money - but no one wanted them. In "old fashioned" caes, where say 
a house is burgled, the burglar may not want them but at least the 
householder does. This genuine policing  - one of the parties wants "the 
law" there. 

In the UK at least, however, the authorities seem little interested in such 
cases - all the police do when a house is burgled is to issue a chit for the 
insurance company, little attempt at detection is made. Of course if a 
criminal is found with possibly stolen goods, *then* the police check them 
off against a list. They don't go looking for solutions to specific crimes 
Sherlock Holmes style. This is probably because economic realities as much 
as anything.


-- 
               *****************************************
Sincerely,     *          Longevity Report             *
               * http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/lr.htm *
John de Rivaz  *           Fractal Report              *
               * http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/fr.htm *
               *       Music I like - see homepage     *
               *****************************************
    In the information age, sharing can increase world
    wealth enormously, because giving information does
              not decrease your information.
     http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR                       
       Fast loading, very few slow pictures

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9253