Notes on Euthanasia

In Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice And Correctional Services and Others (4 May 2015) the High Court gave a terminally ill patient permission to be assisted in his suicide by a doctor who is willing to  do so, 'either by administration of a lethal agent or by providing the Applicant with the necessary lethal agent to administer himself.' 

A few days ago, however, leave was granted to appeal this ruling in order to develop South Africa's common law. 

101 Notes: 

There is currently no legislation/law enacted to regulate euthanasia and as pointed out by a senior State Advocate representing the National Director of Public Prosecution in the aforementioned case, to assist someone commit suicide is a crime. 

There are different variations of euthanasia: 

Doctor withholds treatment from a patient. This is a passive approach. A patient may refuse medication/ treatment in terms of one’s Constitutional right to bodily integrity. 

Where a patient is mentally capable and wants to die, the doctor may NOT pursue any treatment. The crime for doing so is assault. 

Where the patient is mentally incompetent, only a medical professional will be able to determine what would be in the best interests of the patient. Unless the patient has a living will advising that he/she does not consent to artificial life support. A living will is signed when the patient is mentally capable and only becomes relevant when the patient is mentally incompetent/ in a permanent vegetative state. At the moment a living will cannot order a medical practitioner to assist with the patient’s suicide. 

Mercy killing. This is when the doctor actively assists the dying. Regardless of whether or not there is a kind motive: mercy killing = murder. 

There is currently a bill (draft law) concerning assisted suicide. The draft law suggests three approaches: a) Leave the matter unregulated and allow the courts a discretion with regards to sentencing, etc.; b) The doctor and patient decide together; c) Set up an Ethics Committee to decide whether or not assisted suicide may be pursued. 

Note that a High Court does not have the power to make new laws and that decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeal are binding on all lower courts. An order of constitutional invalidity must, however, proceed to the Constitutional Court for confirmation. The Constitutional Court will then typically guide and order Parliament to cater for the specific instance by enacting legislation. Power is divided into three branches: legislative/ law-making (Parliament), executive (President and his Cabinet) and judicial (Courts who apply and review laws). To avoid the abuse of power, each branch functions independently with different functions.

Judge Fabricius in the Stransham case on the sacredness of life, para 14:

"People die of AIDS, from malaria by the hundreds of thousands, from hunger, from malnutrition and impure water and insufficient medical facilities. The State says that it cannot afford to fulfil all socio-economic demands, but it assumes the power to tell an educated individual of sound mind who is gravely ill and about to die, that he must suffer the indignity of the severe pain, and is not allowed to die in a dignified, quiet manner with the assistance of a medical practitioner.”

www.legalhero.co.za 

Seven Interesting Truths about Polygraph Tests

1. There is currently no law specifically regulating polygraph (lie detecting) tests in South Africa!


2. Some employers make use of polygraphs to test the honesty of employees after company property has gone missing or after alleged misconduct. A few employers even request pre-interview polygraph testing!


3. Polygraph tests involve electronic sensors placed over the chest, abdominal and finger to measure respiratory, sweat gland, cardiovascular and blood pressure activity whilst the examinee responds to certain questions.


4. Remember that the outcome of a polygraph test may NOT be the sole reason for a dismissal (reference: Sosibo & Others). It may therefore only count as an aggravating factor to support other evidence against the employee.


5. A person who performs a polygraph test, called a polygraphist, can testify in court as an expert witness to support an employer’s claim against an employee. A polygraph test will cost the employer about R500.00 – R2 000.00+, excluding traveling fees.


6. Furthermore, for the outcome of a polygraph test to be permissible in court, the employer has to comply with a few strict rules:

a) The employer needs the employee’s written consent;

b) The employee’s refusal to undergo a polygraph test does NOT amount to an admission of guilt.
c) The polygraph questions may not be not be vague or misleading;
d) The questions should be explained to the employee prior to the test;
e) The employee has the right to an interpreter during proceedings;
f) The employee has the right to have a colleague/ another person present;

g) The outcome of the polygraph test is confidential and may only be released to the examinee or an authorized person.


7. How accurate is a polygraph test? According to a very recent study (2015) conducted by the American Polygraph Association, a polygraph test is about 86% accurate! There are, however, many who disagree with the admissibility of this statistic and who argue that polygraph testing is subject to far too many variables.


Wishing you a fantastic day,

Legal Hero 

www.legalhero.co.za 

Sexual Experimentation & the Youth

Let’s say you catch your 13 year old daughter and her boyfriend (also 13) kissing in her room. 

Did you know that underage kissing, children 12 to 16 years, is a crime in terms of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007? 

According to this act consensual underage sexual activity/ penetration/ petting/ kissing is a crime. Any person who fails to report it could face possible criminal prosecution. Yes, that means that you as a parent or guardian could be charged with a crime should you fail to report your underage daughter’s smooching session. 

Enter the Teddy Bear Clinic Constitutional Court case (2014):

· Children’s rights activists argued that the criminalization of consensual underage sexual activity causes pregnant girls to avoid clinics and hospitals as they and their partners fear criminal charges;

· The Department of Justice on the other hand argued that decriminalization would negatively impact the already escalating rate of sexual violence among young children;

· The Court, however, found in favour of Teddy Bear Clinic and ruled that the criminalization of consensual underage sexual activity infringes a teenager’s right to dignity and privacy;

· The Court gave Parliament more than a year to change the Sexual Offences Act.

Enter the new draft rules which have yet to come into effect:

· Two consenting minors aged 12 to 16 will not face criminal charges following sexual activity;

· It remains a serious crime for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a minor younger than 16, regardless of the minor’s consent;

· A person aged 16 or 17 years will not face criminal charges for consensual sexual activity with an underage minor, provided the age difference is no more than two years.

“Every child has his or her own dignity. If a child is to be constitutionally imagined as an individual with a distinctive personality, and not merely as a miniature adult waiting to reach full size, he or she cannot be treated as a mere extension of his or her parents, umbilically destined to sink or swim with them.”

- S v M (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) para 18: 

Yours faithfully, 

Legal Hero

www.legalhero.co.za