Argument Against Active Euthanasia

1231 Words5 Pages

1 Introduction
Active euthanasia is brought about when an individual administers or aids in the administration of a lethal substance to another ill or suffering individual. Stansham-Ford v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (“Stansham-Ford) deals with the application for an order allowing such euthanasia to happen. The judgement of Fabricius J held that so long as certain requirements are met this order should be granted. Considering factors such as the right to life and the right to human dignity in light of this judgement the question is raised as to whether this active euthanasia should be allowed?
2 Current case
Stansham-Ford deals with the application to be granted an order allowing a recognised medical practitioner to …show more content…

Also, the fact that the persons last action was a voluntary act does not mean that the other person is not guilty of a crime, Ex parte Minister van Justisie: In re S v Grotjohn .
Thus, the need for the development of the current common law to bring it in line with the current provision contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“the Constitution”). Section 39 of the Constitution makes provision for the development common law to promote a society based on equality, freedom and human dignity.
The right at the centre of this discussion is the right to human dignity, specifically an individual’s right to die with dignity. There are also many sections in the Constitution that are concerned with the inherent right to human dignity. Firstly, section 1 of the Constitution which states South Africa is a republic based on values such as human dignity. Secondly, section 7(1) of the Constitution that states that human dignity is one of the democratic values enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Thirdly, section 10 of the Constitution which states that everyone has an inherent right to human dignity which must be respected and protected. Fourth, section 12(1)(e) of the Constitution that states that no-one is to be treated in a which could be seen as cruel, inhuman or degrading and section12(2)(b) of the Constitution …show more content…

It would provide an individual who is suffering a death with dignity, the ability to choose to end their life without suffering and so that their family does not associate them with such a pitiful image. It also would be respecting of the rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to life, dignity and freedom of security of person. The allowance of such active euthanasia, without the prosecution of those assisting would be in line with the protection provided by the constitution. I, therefore, agree with the judgement of Fabricius in Stansham-Ford. I do however, believe that such acts should be subject to strict regulations and should be control by the creation of appropriate legislation to ensured that a person’s rights and freedoms are