The right to die

2 acts of the United Kingdom Parliament, the Suicide Act of 1961 and the Abortion Act of 1967, have drastically altered doctor/patient relations as outlined in the Hippocratic oath. The major advantage of the Suicide Act is that the physician would be under no obligation to prevent a crime. However, 2 dilemmas involved with this aspect of the Suicide Act are: dealing with the relative slow death of the patient; and/or the possibility of the patient requesting the means to end his or her life. The latter of these 2 choices involves both a moral and a legal issue dealing with the patient's competent intentions. Concerning legislation dealing with abortion, several controversial issues have been raised over the reasons for abortions. Mental and physical defects are reasons which have been cited for abortions and neonate euthanasia. However, bills being currently debated in Parliament feel that it is not the decision of the courts to decide on behalf of a mentally or physically handicapped child whether or not they have the right to die.     

The right to be allowed to die.

The unbridled use of modern medical skills and technology in preserving life at all costs has stimulated interest in expressing a 'right to die' by the legally competent patient who is anxious to protect his autonomy. Some recent decisions by American courts are seen to threaten this 'right to die' of competent patients and imply that legally incompetent patients including children should not have this right under any circumstances, even when expressed on their behalf by guardians, nearest relatives or parents. It is argued that this is contrary to 'natural justice' as viewed by most people. It should be possible to develop procedures which are protective of the basic 'right to life' of the incompetent yet will recognise circumstances where they could be allowed to die. This paper was presented at the 1983 annual conference of the London Medical Group, 'Human Rights in Medicine'.