Advantages of the Premature-Death Apporach to the Right-to-Die
Requires
Less Paperwork
The paradigm for laws against causing premature death
is the well-established practice of withdrawing
life-support systems.
Under present law and medical practice
in all places in the world where life-support systems are in use,
doctors, patients, & proxies for these patients
make life-ending decisions every day
by means of deciding to withdraw or withhold life-support systems.
The medical records for each such patient
show what happened and when
and these records report that the patient died
as the result of the underlying disease, illness, or condition.
The withdrawal of the life-support machinery and drugs
might be noted as the last medical decision for this patient.
In most such cases, there is no ambiguity about what
should have been done.
The patient, proxies, & physicians explored all of
the available
alternatives
before they decided that withdrawing the life-supports was the best
course of action,
knowing full well that death would follow soon after
the respirator and/or the feeding tube were withdrawn.
Perhaps somewhere in the region of 1 death in 1,000,
there might be some question
of whether the life-supports were
withdrawn prematurely.
And such cases would now be open to criminal investigation.
Some harm might have
been visited upon the patient,
which means that some crime
might have been committed.
Normally this would be some lower level of homicide,
the exact degree of murder to be charged
depending on the level of malice
among those who decided to disconnect the life-support systems.
The normal medical records for this patient
would then become the primary evidence to be examined
in order to determine whether a crime was in fact committed
or whether it was a medical mistake in judgement,
which might result in a civil suit for malpractice against the doctors.
Because withdrawing life-supports is so common,
no special records are kept of such medical decisions
apart from all of the normal record-keeping of the hospital.
In other words, there was no
application to any government agency
for permission to withdraw the life-support systems.
And in the vast majority of cases of withdrawing
life-supports,
there will never be any question of criminal prosecution.
Such life-ending decisions are taken without anyone even thinking
that there might be any criminal prosecution following the death.
Other life-ending decisions will not involve discontinuing
life-supports.
But the family and medical persons involved
would be wise to keep good records of their deliberations
about whatever life-ending decisions they ultimately make.
The best-organized way to keep these records
would be in the form of fulfilling the safeguards
named and described in the law against causing premature death.
These
death-planning records would not be presented
to anyone beyond those legitimately involved in the life-ending
decision.
The only exception to this rule of privacy
would arise when there is reason to suspect
that someone caused a premature death.
Then the prosecutor would be empowered to examine all the medical
records.
And the potential defendants would be invited
to present their death-planning records
to show that no crime was committed.
I have suggested a list of 26
recommended safeguards.
But in most cases, this paperwork would not be required.
Most deaths are open-and-shut cases.
The deaths were correctly decided by the right people.
They can keep their own records of the decisions private
unless there is some reason to open a criminal investigation.
A new law against causing premature death
would at least alert people that they are supposed to keep good records
of the death-planning in which they participate.
Most people will not fulfill very many safeguards,
since there will be no question that it was a wisely-decided death.
And even if they did not put their
fulfilling of the
safeguards
into writing at the time,
if they are called upon to testify in a criminal case,
they will be able to remember
their conversations and decisions.
And a jury of their peers will acquit them
if it seems that their motives were mercy rather than malace.
Created March 30,
2007; revised 3-31-2007; 2-1-2008; 2-28-2008