Severely disfigured cancer patient's right to die refused in France (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23394290-401,00.html

A FRENCH court has rejected a request from a 52-year-old severely disfigured former schoolteacher for the right to die, in a case that has stirred much emotion in France.

The high court in Dijon, eastern France, decided to side with the prosecution which argued current legislation does not allow Chantal Sebire's doctor to prescribe lethal drugs.

In her appeal to the court, Ms Sebire said she did not want to endure further pain and subject herself to an irreversible worsening of her condition. She asked the court to allow her doctor to help her end her life.

A mother of three who lives in the Bourgogne region of eastern France, Ms Sebire drew a strong outpour of sympathy when she appealed in a television interview last month for the right to "depart peacefully''.

Before-and-after pictures of the woman, her face severely deformed, have been featured in the press and her account of frightened children who run away at the sight of her has drawn sympathy.

Ms Sebire learnt in 2002 that she had developed an esthesioneuroblastoma, an uncommon malignant tumour in the nasal cavity, which she said has led to "atrocious'' suffering.

"In 2000, I lost the sense of smell and taste ... and I lost my sight in October 2007,'' she said in the television interview.

"One would not allow an animal to go through what I have endured,'' she said before urging President Nicolas Sarkozy to intervene and grant her request.

Commenting on the case, Justice Minister Rachida Dati said last week doctors were not there to prescribe lethal drugs.

Legislation adopted in 2005 allows families to request life-support equipment for a terminally-ill patient be switched off, but does not allow a doctor to take action to end a patient's life.

Mr Sarkozy asked his chief adviser on health issues to contact Ms Sebire and seek a second opinion on her condition.

Ms Sebire has said she will not appeal the decision rendered today and she would find life-terminating drugs through other means.

"I now know how to get my hands on what I need and if I don't get it in France, I will get it elsewhere,'' she said.

Only 200 cases of the disease have been recorded worldwide in two decades.

 

[boris]

Yeah we posted this in the euthanasia thread when she was first putting her bid in a few months ago.

And she's right. we wouldn't let an animal live this long with a condition like this. It makes me angry. I hope she sticks it to them and dies peacefully and with dignity

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

I knew the pictures would be shocking when I clicked on the thread, but I wasn't ready for this ... I think she should have every right to die on her own terms; I'm going agree with both her and boris: we wouldn't let an animal live like this. And we certainly wouldn't let an animal die like it, either.

 

[Kwayera]

I posted it here as well because it'd been updated with a decision.

It is disgusting that a government has the power to dictate whether someone can choose to die or not.

 

[boris]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) only gives the Right to Life, not the Right to Death

High time it was updated.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

Go to hell, JFK. At least Kwayera can hold an intelligent question. All you can do is claim she knows nothing when you probably don't know much more. You have no honour, because you clarly have no shame.

It is disgusting that a government has the power to dictate whether someone can choose to die or not.

A government is a body of people who are usually notably ungoverned. Truly hypocritical of them; they can decide a woman is not allowed to die on her own terms for something she believes in, yet when they go to war they dictate that thousands will die on the government's terms for something soldiers are simply told.

 

[Kwayera]

Nice try, Ash, if you're trolling. If you're not - well, actually, I have had to face these decisions - not directly, no, but in context. My grandmother died of pancreatic cancer. Had she been able to end it before she was in a morphine coma and still moaning in pain, I believe she would have.

A government is a body of people who are usually notably ungoverned. Truly hypocritical of them; they can decide a woman is not allowed to die on her own terms for something she believes in, yet when they go to war they dictate that thousands will die on the government's terms for something soldiers are simply told.

Funny that. *sigh* If I am terminally ill and in monstrous pain, it should be my right, not anybody elses, to choose when and how I die. Not the government, not some religious arbiter (to use JFK's words); you would think that the relief of a person's suffering would rate at least as important as the relief of the suffering of an animal.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

'Kay, I'm just going to ignore you from now on. That cool with you?

Funny that. *sigh* If I am terminally ill and in monstrous pain, it should be my right, not anybody elses, to choose when and how I die. Not the government, not some religious arbiter (to use JFK's words); you would think that the relief of a person's suffering would rate at least as important as the relief of the suffering of an animal.

Then if it is your right, fuck them. The government can't get to you when you're dead. Suicide is not a crime - except to the Catholic Chruch (another bunch of hypocrites I have no love for, thogh for very different reasons) - and what can they do? Stop you from buying handguns and knives or poison? Impound your car so you can't deliberately crash it? Keep you away from cliff tops? Stop you from buying rope at the hardware store?

No wonder the new James Bond villain is modelling him in Nicolas Sarkozy.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

ok i'm going to play...

She could kill herself (as she said she has the means to do it outside of the legal system) yet instead she preferred to keep on living at least to fight out this cause... So obviously she felt there's something to live for?

 

[Kwayera]

But the point is that she shouldn't have to go to such lengths to die, in generally not a very peaceful and painless fashion. She is fighting for the RIGHT to be allowed to be euthanised, and by proxy, the right for anyone else in her situation to have such a dignity afforded to them.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

But the point is that she shouldn't have to go to such lengths to die

Surely someone should show a strong conviction to desire their death before we allow them to kill themselves?

 

[Kwayera]

Surely someone should show a strong conviction to desire their death before we allow them to kill themselves?

There is the point.

You shouldn't have to ALLOW a person to kill themselves. That should be a fundamental part of a person's rights!

 

[ur_inner_child]

I've seen this disorder in a far worse scenario (as in, further on in the illness). It's only going to get more painful and traumatic; just an overall downhill spiral.

Generally this tumor will keep growing and it will be difficult for her to move around the house without immense amounts of pain.

I think, though, it's heartwrenching that she has lived a normal life, had children, and now is just suffering. Christ, let her leave this place in dignity and peacefully.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

You shouldn't have to ALLOW a person to kill themselves. That should be a fundamental part of a person's rights!

This seems to me to be nothing more than a rhetorical distinction... in practice.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I don't see how you can punish anyone for committing suicide, tbh.

I think they charge any doctors or helpers around.

ie the family etc.

And gaol those who attempt it (and didn't necessarily succeed)

 

[boris]

ok i'm going to play...

She could kill herself (as she said she has the means to do it outside of the legal system) yet instead she preferred to keep on living at least to fight out this cause... So obviously she felt there's something to live for?

They're fighting for the right to choose when they can die. Fighting for the right to a dignified death. If it means living in hell for a bit longer then they probably think it's worth it.

They have a terminal illness mang, there isn't a lot else in their life they control. They atleast deserve the respect to choose how and when they can die, rather than be subject to a cruel and harrowing death.

We put animals down humanely for a lot less than this.

 

[boris]

I don't see how you can punish anyone for committing suicide, tbh.

Yeah as Stef said...

I think also the reason people with a terminal illness will fight for the right instead of just taking their life like an emo kid is because honestly, offing yourself isn't exactly the most dignified way to go and often backfires.

If they atleast decriminalise the act of assisted suicide, it gives them peace of mind knowing their families won't be charged/and or doctors for assisting their death. If a doctor does it you can guarantee death, not some home botched job that would leave them worse off than when they started.

Fuck, the argument for the otherside is so dumb. Doctors aren't allowed to give drugs for death. REVIEW THE FREAKING GUIDELINES THEN YOU GUYS.

 

[Zrap]

Death is horrible.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

They're fighting for the right to choose when they can die. Fighting for the right to a dignified death. If it means living in hell for a bit longer then they probably think it's worth it.

But they already can kill themselves (i.e. other countries), they just don't have the legal right yet. Obviously there's still something worth living for, for them.

They have a terminal illness mang, there isn't a lot else in their life they control. They atleast deserve the respect to choose how and when they can die, rather than be subject to a cruel and harrowing death.

Agreed. In practice though, making laws to allow for people to allow people to assist others to kill themselves are somewhat morally problematic.

We put animals down humanely for a lot less than this.

The life of an animal doesn't have the same value so we don't believe life outweighs suffering in most cases for them.

Just figured I'd pose an opposing voice..

 

[boris]

But they already can kill themselves (i.e. other countries), they just don't have the legal right yet. Obviously there's still something worth living for, for them.


Agreed. In practice though, making laws to allow for people to allow people to assist others to kill themselves are somewhat morally problematic.


The life of an animal doesn't have the same value so we don't believe life outweighs suffering in most cases for them.

Just figured I'd pose an opposing voice..

They can already kill themselves, yes. But what I was arguing for was a dignified death and one that will be free from human error. It's easy enough for a person to say 'if I take X amount of a certain pill, it'll kill me', and more often that not this just results in severe error.

They do have something to live for. They've got family and friends. But there comes a time when a persons quality of life outweighs their need to stay alive. I think this is a pretty good example of where a persons quality of life has been diminished so severely, that the only thing left to live for is the right to die with dignity, and not to cling on to any little iota of life they have left.

The point I was making re: animals was that if we have such little value for the life of an animal, why do we go to the effort to put them down humanely when they have conditions less severe than this? Why don't we just let them suffer? The answer is because we do value the lives of animals.

I don't know hey, I know it's morally problematic to implement a law that would decriminalise assisted suicide. But I think it's more morally problematic to stand back and say it's okay for people to suffer because we can't contravene an outdated law.