David Richmond: Martin verdict no reason for a change to the law

COMMENT

Both Lesley Martin and euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke have been reported in the Herald as arguing that the guilty verdict in the Martin case supports the need for a change in the euthanasia law. As professed advocates for such a change, they would doubtless have expressed exactly the same opinion had the verdict been not guilty.

But how could this case possibly be construed as supporting the need for legalising euthanasia?

Here was a situation where, as far as one can tell from the evidence, a daughter attempted to kill her mother despite there being no credible evidence that the latter had specifically requested euthanasia at that time.

True, Martin stated in her book that her mother had said: "Don't let me lie there ... not alive and not dead ... Please help me ... Be quick." But we have to remember that the book was written to justify Martin's actions.

Secondly, her lawyer argued in her defence in court that the written record of what she said had happened might not be accurate.

Thirdly, even if this is what Mrs Martin senior said, there is no time frame to it and it is not even clear that the words amount to a request for termination at her daughter's hands.

But, most important of all, there was no independent corroboration. The family doctor did not know of such a request. Neither did other members of the Martin family, nor the hospice nurse.

Would one not think that before taking it upon oneself to kill someone who has ostensibly requested it, one would at least want to get independent verification of the request? Has human life become so cheap?

It turns out that this was a case of attempted murder by a care-giver who was finding it difficult to manage her own stress. The appropriate solution was surely not to kill the patient but to get help with the stress.

Advocates for euthanasia would sooner get rid of the problem patient in the name of "compassion". This is in line with documented experience from the few countries around the world that have legalised euthanasia: much of the push for it in individual cases comes from families unable to manage their stress, not from the sick person.

Worse, the evidence is that in such countries a considerable proportion of euthanasia performed is not voluntary at all; it is involuntary - that is, the procedure takes place without the patient's consent or knowledge, despite the fact that the patient would have been capable of giving consent had they been consulted. Then the records are fudged.

That Lesley Martin failed to kill her mother at the first attempt is also instructive.

Research in the Netherlands has shown that even when performed by a medical practitioner, about 10 per cent of attempts at euthanasia and 30 per cent of physician-assisted suicides were complicated by severe side-effects, including failure of the procedure on the first pass. That is hardly death with dignity.

Historically in New Zealand, human life has had a high value. We frown on killing another even in self-defence. We abolished capital punishment on the grounds that even the death of one innocent victim at the hands of the state was too high a price to pay.

Legalising euthanasia would open us up again to the very real likelihood of state-sanctioned death for some people with incorrect diagnoses, and others with no desire to die. Let's leave the law as it is.

* David Richmond, of Remuera, is a professor emeritus (geriatric medicine).