SAFEGUARD
FOR LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
REPORT
TO THE PROSECUTOR
BEFORE
THE DEATH TAKES PLACE
The prosecuting authority in any jurisdiction
is that public official who is responsible for bringing criminal changes
whenever a crime has been committed.
Thus, one possible safeguard to prevent any crime being committed
under the color of the right-to-die
would be to report the death-planning process to prosecuting authority
before the last steps
toward death are taken.
If we take as our model for life-ending decision
the withdrawal of life-support systems,
we realize that there would be far too many deaths
achieved by such
withdrawal
to make it practical to report each and every one to the prosecuting
authority.
When death occurs because the methods of life-support were removed,
then this will be reported on the death certificate as a death from
natural causes.
And the doctor who pronounces death will specify
just what diseases or conditions led to this death.
That statistical report of death goes to the department of health
or to some similar government agency that keeps track of all deaths.
The prosecuting authority in any jurisdiction only
becomes involved
in suspicious deaths
or in deaths that were the result of some form of
crime.
The coroner or medical examiner is the public medical officer
who is responsible for investigating suspicious deaths,
especially deaths that take place outside of hospitals,
nursing home,
and other institutions that care for dying people.
However, if the patient and/or proxies
who are planning a voluntary death or a merciful death
want to make sure that they
will not be prosecuted for their actions,
it should be possible for them to present their death-planning record
to the prosecuting authority for the purpose of being assured
that no prosecutions will result from their actions.
The death-planning record should be sufficient proof
that this death will not be
a harm to the patient,
will not be an irrational action taken on the spur of the moment,
and that after the death has been achieved,
all who know the facts will find it to have been an admirable choice
rather than a tragic and
regrettable mistake.
At first the prosecuting authority might have a
knee-jerk reaction
to any papers submitted proposing to help someone to die.
The prosecutor spends all of his or her time looking at crimes or
possible crimes.
So when an application comes in the mail
stating that such-and-such a patient is considering a voluntary death
or that the proxies are considering a merciful death for this patient,
then the prosecutor might first send the police to prevent any such
death.
But as more people exercise their legal options at
the end of life,
even the public prosecutor will become accustomed to such choices.
Perhaps half
of all deaths in the United States
now include a meaningful element of of choice.
Thus, it would be foolish to involve the prosecutor in all of these
deaths.
But when there are good reasons to raise doubts,
the prosecuting authority might well be involved.
After a questionable
death has taken place,
the prosecutor will become involved in any case.
So why not bring in this legal perspective
before any possible
crime has been committed?
If any prosecutor continues to say "no" to all
proposed life-ending decisions,
that prosecutor should be re-educated about medical ethics
and the legal
options for making life-ending decisions.
If the prosecutor cannot be 'brought up to speed',
he or she should be replaced.
Large offices of prosecutors will probably appoint
staff members
specifically trained to review questionable life-ending decisions.
HOW REPORTING TO THE PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE DEATH
WILL DISCOURAGE IRRATIONAL SUICIDE
AND OTHER FORMS OF PREMATURE DEATH
Persons who are thinking about committing irrational
suicide
will have no inclinations to inform the public prosecutor
before they proceed with their irrational plan to kill themselves.
And anyone who is planning to support an irrational suicide
likewise would not want this proposed criminal action
to be shared with prosecutor.
But when proxies are planning to withdraw
life-supports,
and if they are uncertain of their legal authority to do so,
they might ask for a legal opinion from the public official
who would normally be responsible for charging them with a crime
if they harm someone else.
The very fact that they have been willing
to share their plans with the public prosecutor
should be taken as strong evidence that they have no evil intent.
The prosecuting authority can examine all of the
documents
created in the death-planning process.
And if the prosecutor finds some gaps or problems with the documents,
he or she can ask for more information.
All such deeper investigation should be for the
purpose
of preventing premature
deaths.
And sometimes the public prosecutor will discover some factors
that will change the plans for death.
If the prosecutor believes that a crime is about to be committed,
he or she can inform the doctor, the hospital, the proxies, etc.
that criminal charges will be brought if the death proceeds as planned.
This will be one of the strongest ways of preventing premature death.
Civil and
criminal penalties will remain in place.
Anyone tempted to encourage or cause a premature death
will know that there are criminal and civil penalties
that will be applied if someone does any harm to another
under the guise of the right-to-die.
However, if the prosecutor finds no problems in the
death-planning process,
he or she can issue a written statement that in his or her opinion
no crime will be committed if the death proceeds as planned.
And everyone involved in the death-planning process
can rely on this statement from the prosecutor
and proceed without fear of prosecution after the death has been
achieved.
Created January 25,
2007; revised 4-12-2008; 3-21-2008