|
|
In March 1993 Anthony Bland had lain in
persistent vegetative state for three years before a Court Order allowed his
degradation and indignity to come to a merciful close. The judges said that
if he had made a living will expressing his future wishes he could have been
allowed to die in peace earlier. Exit is at the forefront of living will
research in the UK. Your subscription will help to make a peaceful death
through a living will a reality for anyone who desires it.
In 1992 Dr Cox openly defied the law and assented to 70 year old
Mrs Boyes' persistent request for voluntary active euthanasia. Mrs Boyes' was
so ill that she "screamed like a dog" if anyone touched her.
Conventional medicine did not relieve her agony. In her last days, when she
repeatedly requested to die, Dr Cox finally gave her an injection of potassium
chloride, bestowing on her the boon of a peaceful death so many of us feel we
are entitled to. Dr Cox, although given a suspended sentence, was hauled
through the courts like a common criminal. We believe good doctors acting in
all conscience like Dr Cox, should be lauded, not vilified, and should have
the benefit of legally approved codes of conduct that embody consistent
safeguards against abuse. Together we should ensure that medicine and the law
serve the patient and the citizen once more. Together, we can stand and be
counted. And, from pooled resources, each small contribution will contribute
to the powerful tidal wave that Exit can use to bring this about.
Sue Rodriguez, a mother in her early thirties, died slowly of Lou
Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her
muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully
conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the Courts to reassure her
that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death.
They refused. She lived on in terror, helped eventually by a doctor who, in
February 1994, covertly broke the law to help her die in peace. A law on
assisted suicide with rigorous safeguards could have saved her the nightmare
during those months before her death, given her the confidence to carry on -
with the reassurance that when it got too bad she could rely on a
compassionate doctor to follow her wishes at the end. Exit is pledged to
support research for drafting the most thorough, yet feasible, assisted
suicide Bill yet presented to Parliament. Your support will make it happen.
"Mr C", a 68 year old prisoner of Jamaican origin had
been diagnosed as suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and was
treated with drugs and electro-convulsive therapy. In September 1993 the
prison doctors found he had gangrene in his right leg. They felt his chance
of survival with conventional treatment was no better than 15%, and so
recommended that his leg be amputated below the knee. The prisoner refused
amputation and received conventional treatment only. There was a likelihood,
however, that gangrene would recur. The prisoner stated he would rather die
on two legs than live on one, and his solicitor asked the hospital to promise
not to amputate in any circumstances without the prisoner's consent. They
refused, and he sought a court injunction to uphold his wishes. The court
considered expert testimony in the case (known as Re C) and found
that, although the prisoner was suffering from schizophrenia, there was
nothing to suggest that he did not understand the nature, purpose and effects
of treatment; he had understood, and, with a full knowledge that death might
result from refusing amputation, had clearly made his choice. The court
upheld the prisoner's right to make an advance refusal of treatment and
granted an injunction. The case paved the way for acceptance of advance
refusals of medical treatments and so for living wills. Completion of an Exit
living will document could save distressing and drawn-out court proceedings
if ever you were incapacitated.
Karen Ann Quinlan collapsed on April 15th, 1975. She was twenty-one
years old. Within hours, she entered a coma from which she could never
recover. Her parents, staunch Roman Catholics, knew their daughter would not
want to be kept alive by extraordinary means. A year later, as Karen lay in a
"persistent vegetative state," the courts finally allowed her
treatment to be stopped; but artificial feeding was continued and she was
maintained as a living corpse until June 1985, when she eventually died of
pneumonia. Her case spurred thousands of letters of sympathy and fuelled the
"right to die" movement. How many people need to die degrading
deaths before society learns a little humanity? Exit is committed to research
and teaching in these difficult areas. Help us to help you, and all those who
would seek die with dignity and give you their heartfelt thanks.
Ramon Sanpedro sought, through the courts, the assistance of a
doctor to help him die with dignity. He was paralysed in Spain as a result of
a swimming accident during his youth. He described himself as "a head attached
to a corpse." He wrote:
"Why die? Because every journey has its departure time and only the
traveller has the privilege and the right to choose the last day to get out.
Why to die? Because at times the journey of no return is the best path that
reason can show us out of love and respect for life, so that life may have a
dignified death."
Ramon Sanpedro made no suggestion as to what the wishes of others in a
similar physical condition might be. In fact, some people who are so paralysed
take enjoyment in life and want to go on living. Their choice should be
respected and they should be given every support. But Ramon Sanpedro made his
choice and choice should be respected. We should seek to ensure that the
rights of the individual are always respected without allowing others to feel
endangered or pressurised. Exit provides international technical and
informational support. With your help, we can make the world a better place.
Nancy Cruzan lost control of her car one day in January 1983 in
Missouri. When the paramedics arrived, they were able to restore her
breathing and heartbeat and she was transported, unconscious, to hospital.
She continued to be fed through a surgically- implanted gastrostomy tube.
After several years, a court found that, although her respiration and
circulation continued unaided, she was oblivious to her surroundings except
for reflexive responses to sound and perhaps painful stimuli; her brain had
degenerated, irreversibly; she was a spastic quadriplegic; she suffered
contraction of her four extremities, with irreversible muscle and tendon
damage; and had no cognitive or reflex ability to swallow food or water or to
maintain her essential daily needs nor would she ever recover such an
ability. She lay in persistent vegetative state even though she had told her
housemate that, if sick or injured, she would not wish to continue her life
unless she could live "at least halfway normal." This was the first
time the U.S. Supreme Court had been faced with what we call the "right
to die." They said that Missouri had "arrogated to itself" the
power to define life, and Nancy Cruzan's life and liberty consequently put
into disquieting conflict. She had not made a living will, and the court case
paved the way for a uniform, national Patient Self- Determination Act that
regulated living wills and made them more widely available. Exit is
campaigning for uniform UK reform to make living wills more widely available.
Your help can make it a reality.
57 year old Georgette Malette, in the early afternoon of June 30th,
1979, was rushed, unconscious, by ambulance, to hospital. The car in which
she was a passenger, driven by her husband, had collided with a truck. Her
husband had been killed; she had suffered serious injuries. She was a
Jehovah's Witness and carried a card stating her firm conviction that no
blood or blood products should be administered to her under any
circumstances. The doctor treating her ignored the card and gave her a blood
transfusion which he decided was medically indicated. In June 1980 Mrs
Malette brought charges against Dr Shulman. The judge found that Mrs Malette
had suffered emotionally and mentally and ordered substantial costs to be
paid. It made no difference that the medical team didn't agree with her
beliefs. Her advance refusal of treatment was unambiguous. Unfortunately,
living wills tend to be far less clear cut, dealing with a wide range of
circumstances in which interpretation is sometimes necessary. Exit is at the
forefront of research into living wills and other ways of having your wishes
respected at the end of life. Public support will help us to help make dying
more dignified for all those who want to retain some control and self-respect
in their dying phase.
When her case came to trial, Claire Conroy was unable to move from
a semi-fetal position. She was severely demented, had heart disease,
hypertension and diabetes and her left leg was gangrenous to the knee; she
had sores, couldn't speak, had only a limited ability to swallow, and had eye
problems; she had a urinary catheter in place and was unable to control her
bowels. She was able to moan and scratch, and occasionally smile when someone
combed her hair. Claire Conroy eventually died before the courts were able to
decide what to do. She was not a candidate for voluntary euthanasia. She had
not made a living will. But her case posed very worrying dilemmas about end
of life decisions. Pushing difficult deaths to one side will not make them go
away or make them any easier. Exit encourages open discussion of the problems
increasingly facing us in society. We care, and we listen with an open mind.
We ask you to work with us so that every person can die with dignity in the
way that he or she would choose.
|
