Advantages
of the Premature-Death Approach to the Right-to-Die
Makes
Each
Particular Safeguard Optional
Under most systems that permit the right-to-die
when specified safeguards are fulfilled,
each and every one of the
safeguards must be completed
before the application for death will be approved.
This is because such apply-for-death laws
fall under the administrative
procedures of some government
agency.
Paperwork must be completed in the required forms
and submitted to particular government offices within certain dates.
But the premature-death approach to the right-to-die
places the procedures under the criminal law
and the criminal-justice
procedures
of the government
that has created a new law against causing premature death.
Whenever there has been a suspected premature death,
the criminal-justice system investigates the questionable death.
The initial investigation will ask about the planning for death
to see if it was a wise death
(not a crime) or a foolish
death
(which might be the crime of causing premature
death).
This initial investigation will most frequently conclude
that no crime
was committed.
And if criminal charges are ever brought against anyone,
then the law defines several
specific
safeguards
that can be used to prove that this death was not premature.
Not all of the suggested safeguards need be
fulfilled.
It would only be necessary to fulfill enough of them
to prove to a neutral judge and/or jury
that the death in question was not premature.
Anyone who participates in a life-ending decision
will have in the back of his or her mind
the possibility of criminal prosecution for causing premature death.
(This will be very similar to doctors always practicing medicine
under the cloud of possible malpractice suits.
Careful doctors always create good records,
which show that they followed standard medical procedures
in making all of their medical decisions and recommendations.)
When doctors and others make life-ending
decisions,
they will be sure to create sufficient records
to present to the prosecutor and/or the judge-and-jury
to prove that the specific life-ending decisions
were taken with all
due consideration of the alternatives.
In creating this record of the death-planning
process,
they will fulfill whichever safeguards they find most relevant.
For example, they will be certain to include
the doctor's
diagnosis and
prognosis.
But if the patient and/or the family are not religious,
they need not get
approval from religious authorities.
There might be 26
different
safeguards
specified in a law against causing premature death.
But some of these will be more convincing that others,
depending on the specific circumstances of each proposed death.
Those who are participating in planning for a specific death
will be able to choose among
the available, defined safeguards
which ones best make their
case
that this death
will not be premature.
In criminal cases, the burden-of-proof
rests on
the prosecution:
The prosecuting authority must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that some crime (harm) was committed against the patient.
The defense will be permitted to present as evidence
the fulfilling of any of the safeguards specified in the law.
In many cases, only a few safeguards will be needed
because the cases will be so clear-cut from the start.
For example, most cases of removing
life-support systems
will have a multi-page paper-trail (or electronic equivalent)
showing all the medical steps that were taken to treat the patient,
including using the life-support measures now in place.
So when the life-supports are removed,
the reasons for this life-ending decision
will already be included in the medical record.
And there will almost never be any occasion for the prosecutor
to look at these records to see if some crime has been committed.
In more difficult cases
—where
there might be honest differences of opinion
about the best course of action—
then
more safeguards
will be useful.
First,
possible mistakes will be prevented
in
the very process of fulfilling the safeguards.
A second
professional opinion might suggest a new treatment.
Or some potential crime might be uncovered when the prosecutor
reviews
the
death-planing records created up to that
date.
When more
people are asked to examine
the medical facts and recommendations leading to a life-ending decision,
the likelihood of mistakes, abuses, & crimes is diminished.
And second, if there is ever a criminal trial,
the fulfilled safeguards will be the primary defense
against the charge of causing a premature death.
And because specific
safeguards are described in the law,
the judge will NOT be
permitted to exclude
the wishes of the patient and/or the family, for example,
which has sometimes happened
when 'mercy-killing' was prosecuted under murder statutes.
Many safeguards explore the medical condition of the patient.
Participants in life-ending decisions
will not be
required to do a lot of paperwork in advance.
But if they might be charged with causing premature
death,
it will be in their own best
interest to fulfill
safeguards,
which were put into the law in order to prevent premature deaths.
And depending on the specific facts of any proposed death,
the people who are fulfilling the safeguards
will know which ones would be most effective
in preventing this particular
patient from dying too soon
and which ones will be most effective in convincing
a prosecutor, a judge, and/or jury that no crime was committed.
If more proofs might be needed, more safeguards will
be fulfilled.
For example, it will be overwhelmingly good evidence
to any prosecutor, judge, or jury
that an ethics
committee reviewed the proposed death beforehand
and approved the plans for death.
As soon as the
prosecutor discovers
that an institutional ethics committee approved the life-ending choice,
all further investigation will be dropped.
Because each
particular safeguard is optional,
there is no reason to argue against any particular safeguard
when discussing what provisions to include
in the law against causing premature
death.
Even safeguards seldom used
can be described in the law,
in case there might be patients and/or proxies who could use them.
Health-care laws permitting doctors to prescribe
deadly chemicals
require detailed discussion of the
safeguards,
because they are all
required safeguards.
And in some cases the very process of fulfilling say 10 safeguards
will seem so overwhelming that people will be tempted
to choose an underground
death
—secret,
falsely-reported, & without any
public safeguards.
And the process
of passing a law to permit
life-ending chemicals
will be lengthy because advocates of the right-to-die will argue
that some of the proposed safeguards would be too burdensome.
When the law seeks to prevent premature death,
if some safeguards seem burdensome and/or irrelevant,
they can be ignored
because the degree of proof they would provide
is small compared to other safeguards
that are more directly relevant to the bedside decisions.
In other words, less-used safeguards would not be an obstacle
to passing any new legislation
because the less-meaningful safeguards can be ignored
when they are not as relevant as other safeguards
for proving that the death was not premature.
What might seem to be a burdensome safeguard
under any system of applying
for the right-to-die
does not matter when it is merely a possible defense
against the charge of causing
a premature death.