<ヘッダー>
<日付/時刻>
マスタ テキストの書式設定
第 2 レベル
第 3 レベル
第 4 レベル
第 5 レベル
<フッター>
<#>
11月2日13.40-14.00 広島国際会議場 第二会場にて
http://www.justice4diane.org.uk/story.asp
I am only 43 years old. I desperately want a doctor to help me to die. Motor neurone disease has left my mind as sharp as ever, but it has gradually destroyed my muscles, making it hard for me to communicate with my family. It has left me in a wheelchair, catheterised and fed through a tube. I have fought against the disease for the last 2 years and had every possible medical treatment.
I am fully aware of what the future holds and have decided to refuse artificial ventilation. Rather than die by choking or suffocation, I want a doctor to help me die when I am no longer able to communicate with my family and friends. I have discussed this with my husband of 25 years, Brian who has come to terms with what I want and respects my decision. He says that losing me will be devastating for him and our two children but he would be pleased to know I had had the good death I want. I want to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family so that I can say good-bye to them.
 If I were physically able I could take my own life. That's not illegal. But because of the terrible nature of my illness I cannot take my own life - to carry out my wish I will need assistance. Should a doctor give me the assistance I need, he or she will be guilty of a crime that carries a lengthy prison sentence. As the law stands it makes no sense.
The law needs changing so that I, and people like me, can choose how and when we die and not be forced to endure untold suffering for no reason. If you agree, please sign the petition on this site
ダイアン・プリティ、英国のMND患者、夫によるassisted suicideを求める
彼女の主張、Liberty、VES
高等法院、貴族院で敗訴
欧州人権裁判所
判決、主要なProとCon
http://www.justice4diane.org.uk/story.asp
I am fully aware of what the future holds and have decided to refuse artificial ventilation. Rather than die by choking or suffocation, I want a doctor to help me die when I am no longer able to communicate with my family and friends. I have discussed this with my husband of 25 years, Brian who has come to terms with what I want and respects my decision. He says that losing me will be devastating for him and our two children but he would be pleased to know I had had the good death I want. I want to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family so that I can say good-bye to them. If I were physically able I could take my own life. That's not illegal. But because of the terrible nature of my illness I cannot take my own life - to carry out my wish I will need assistance. Should a doctor give me the assistance I need, he or she will be guilty of a crime that carries a lengthy prison sentence. As the law stands it makes no sense. The law needs changing so that I, and people like me, can choose how and when we die and not be forced to endure untold suffering for no reason. If you agree, please sign the petition on this site
http://www.justice4diane.org.uk/story.asp
He says that losing me will be devastating for him and our two children but he would be pleased to know I had had the good death I want. I want to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family so that I can say good-bye to them. If I were physically able I could take my own life. That's not illegal. But because of the terrible nature of my illness I cannot take my own life - to carry out my wish I will need assistance. Should a doctor give me the assistance I need, he or she will be guilty of a crime that carries a lengthy prison sentence. As the law stands it makes no sense. The law needs changing so that I, and people like me, can choose how and when we die and not be forced to endure untold suffering for no reason. If you agree, please sign the petition on this site
http://www.justice4diane.org.uk/story.asp
If I were physically able I could take my own life. That's not illegal. But because of the terrible nature of my illness I cannot take my own life - to carry out my wish I will need assistance. Should a doctor give me the assistance I need, he or she will be guilty of a crime that carries a lengthy prison sentence. As the law stands it makes no sense.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1983562.stm
November 1999: Diane Pretty is diagnosed with motor neurone disease, a degenerative condition which has left her completely dependant on her family.
The disease has no impact on her intellect, but within four months it confines her to a wheelchair.
June 2000: Mr Pretty writes to Tony Blair pleading for a change in the law. He says his wife wants him to help her end her life.
August 2001: Mrs Pretty asks to the Director of Public Prosecutions, David Calvert Smith QC to grant her husband immunity from prosecution should he help her to commit suicide.
The move receives the backing of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and civil rights group, Liberty.
The DPP acknowledges that Mrs Pretty and her family are experiencing "terrible suffering" - but he refuses to grant immunity.
August 31, 2001: A High Court Judge grants Mrs Pretty the right to challenge the DPP's decision through the courts. She claims it represents an infringement of her human rights.
Sitting in London, Mr Justice Silber says he wants the full hearing to be heard as soon as possible.
October 10, 2001: A two-day hearing begins at the High Court. Mrs Pretty attends.
October 18, 2001: Three High Court judges, headed by Lord Justice Tuckey, reject Mrs Pretty's appeal. They conclude that the UK is not ready to sanction the idea of assisted suicide.
November 14, 2001: Five Law Lords review the High Court ruling.
November 29, 2001: The Law Lords, headed by Lord Bingham, confirm the decision of the High Court.
Mrs Pretty announces that she will make one last appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
November 30, 2001: MPs sign an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons calling for a change in the law.
March 19, 2002: A 90 minute hearing in the European Court in front of seven Human Rights judges.
Mr and Mrs Pretty travel by ambulance for 12 hours to attend.
April 29, 2002: Human Rights judges in Strasbourg rejected the appeal.
May 3, 2002: Mrs Pretty is admitted to a hospice. She develops a chest infection and breathing difficulties.
May 11, 2002: Diane Pretty dies at a hospice near her home.
主要なのは3, 8, 14 http://www.justice4diane.org.uk/case.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1957438.stm
Diane Pretty's unsuccessful application to the European Court of Human Rights claimed that the UK government were violating five key rights. The judgement, delivered on Monday, rejected all of these arguments.
Article 2 (right to life) - no violation.
Diane Pretty claimed that the existence of a right to life could also confer a right to die - which she was therefore being denied.
The court ruled: "In its case-law in this area the Court had placed consistent emphasis on the obligation of the State to protect life.
"In these circumstances it was not persuaded that 'the right to life' guaranteed in Article 2 could be interpreted as involving a negative aspect.
"Article 2 could not, without a distortion of language, be interpreted as conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely a right to die; nor could it create a right to self-determination in the sense of conferring on an individual the entitlement to choose death rather than life."
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) - no violation
Mrs Pretty said that denying her the right to assisted suicide was, by prolonging her life, making her endure such "inhuman or degrading treatment".
The judges ruled: "The Court could not but be sympathetic to the applicant's apprehension that without the possibility of ending her life she faced the prospect of a distressing death.
"Nonetheless, the positive obligation on the part of the State which had been invoked would require that the State sanction actions intended to terminate life, an obligation that could not be derived from Article 3." Article 8 (right to respect for private life) - no violation
Mrs Pretty claimed that this article clearly gave her a right to self-determination, in particular the ability to choose how to end it.
The ruling stated: "The law in issue in this case, section 2 of the Suicide Act, was designed to safeguard life by protecting the weak and vulnerable and especially those who were not in a condition to take informed decisions against acts intended to end life or to assist in ending life.
"The Court did not consider that the blanket nature of the ban on assisted suicide was disproportionate.
"It did not appear to be arbitrary for the law to reflect the importance of the right to life, by prohibiting assisted suicide while providing for a system of enforcement and adjudication which allowed due regard to be given in each particular case to the public interest in bringing a prosecution, as well as to the fair and proper requirements of retribution and deterrence."
Article 9 (freedom of conscience) - no violation
Mrs Pretty said that the failure to provide a scheme to allow her to end her life violated this act by preventing her from exercising her beliefs.
The ruling stated: "The applicant's claims did not involve a form of manifestation of a religion or belief, through worship, teaching, practice or observance as described in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
"The term "practice" did not cover each act which was motivated or influenced by a religion or belief."
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) - no violation.
Mrs Pretty said that the current law discrimated against her, as an able-bodied person would be legally able to commit suicide, whereas she could not without help.
The ruling stated: "There was, in the Court's view, objective and reasonable justification for not distinguishing in law between those who were and those who were not physically capable of committing suicide.
"Cogent reasons existed for not seeking to distinguish between those who were able and those who were unable to commit suicide unaided.
"The borderline between the two categories would often be a very fine one and to seek to build into the law an exemption for those judged to be incapable of committing suicide would seriously undermine the protection of life which the 1961 Act was intended to safeguard and greatly increase the risk of abuse."
Article 8 (right to respect for private life) - no violation
Mrs Pretty claimed that this article clearly gave her a right to self-determination, in particular the ability to choose how to end it.
The ruling stated: "The law in issue in this case, section 2 of the Suicide Act, was designed to safeguard life by protecting the weak and vulnerable and especially those who were not in a condition to take informed decisions against acts intended to end life or to assist in ending life.
"The Court did not consider that the blanket nature of the ban on assisted suicide was disproportionate.
"It did not appear to be arbitrary for the law to reflect the importance of the right to life, by prohibiting assisted suicide while providing for a system of enforcement and adjudication which allowed due regard to be given in each particular case to the public interest in bringing a prosecution, as well as to the fair and proper requirements of retribution and deterrence."
Article 9 (freedom of conscience) - no violation
Mrs Pretty said that the failure to provide a scheme to allow her to end her life violated this act by preventing her from exercising her beliefs.
The ruling stated: "The applicant's claims did not involve a form of manifestation of a religion or belief, through worship, teaching, practice or observance as described in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
"The term "practice" did not cover each act which was motivated or influenced by a religion or belief."
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) - no violation.
Mrs Pretty said that the current law discrimated against her, as an able-bodied person would be legally able to commit suicide, whereas she could not without help.
The ruling stated: "There was, in the Court's view, objective and reasonable justification for not distinguishing in law between those who were and those who were not physically capable of committing suicide.
"Cogent reasons existed for not seeking to distinguish between those who were able and those who were unable to commit suicide unaided.
"The borderline between the two categories would often be a very fine one and to seek to build into the law an exemption for those judged to be incapable of committing suicide would seriously undermine the protection of life which the 1961 Act was intended to safeguard and greatly increase the risk of abuse."
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) - no violation.
Mrs Pretty said that the current law discrimated against her, as an able-bodied person would be legally able to commit suicide, whereas she could not without help. The ruling stated: "There was, in the Court's view, objective and reasonable justification for not distinguishing in law between those who were and those who were not physically capable of committing suicide. "Cogent reasons existed for not seeking to distinguish between those who were able and those who were unable to commit suicide unaided. "The borderline between the two categories would often be a very fine one and to seek to build into the law an exemption for those judged to be incapable of committing suicide would seriously undermine the protection of life which the 1961 Act was intended to safeguard and greatly increase the risk of abuse."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1983592.stm
Rachel Hurst, director of Disability Awareness in Action
"It would be a slippery slope and many people who did not want to die could be affected."
Ms Hurst said palliative care was now so sophisticated that it would have helped to ease Mrs Pretty's suffering considerably.
Dr Greg Gardner of the Medical Ethics Alliance, said Mrs Pretty's case had helped to bring the issue out into the open.
However, he said the case had served to emphasise that there was no right to die under law.
"Once you allow a little bit of euthanasia, you end up with quite a lot."
Assisted suicide is legal in Holland and Belgium, and tolerated in Germany and Switzerland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1957396.stm
Richard Green, of the Motor Neurone Disease Association, said its members were divided over the case.
He told BBC News: "There are many in the association who supported her application but equally there are people in the association who would have been horrified if there was a change in the law."
The Medical Ethics Alliance welcomed the verdict saying a "right-to-die" ruling would have put many disabled and elderly people at risk.
Dr Michael Wilks, of the British Medical Association, said: "The European Court of Human Rights has made the right decision."
Bruno Quintavalle of the anti-euthanasia ProLife Alliance said: "We are thankful but not surprised by the Strasbourg court's unanimous rejection of her claim to have a right to die under the European Convention on Human Rights."
http://www.ethics.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kodama/news/pretty.html
英国では今年の春に二つの重要な安楽死事件の判決が出された。このいずれの事件も、首から下が完全に麻痺した40代前半の女性が、安楽死の許可を得るために裁判所に訴えでたものであったが、一方の訴えは認められ、他方の訴えは退けられた。この違いは、脊椎の血管が破裂してICUで治療を受けていた一方の女性(Ms B) は人工呼吸装置の停止を求めていたのに対し、運動ニューロン病という進行性の不治の病を患っていたもう一方の女性 (ダイアン・プリティ)は夫による自殺幇助を求めていたことによる。英国の判例法によれば、判断能力のある患者には治療拒否が認められるため、高等法院の判決によって判断能力が認められたMs Bは、医者に人工呼吸装置の停止を希望し、彼女の意思通りに安楽死することができた。他方、英国では自殺は1961年の自殺法によって非犯罪化されたが、自殺幇助は同法によって例外なく禁止されている。そのためダイアン・プリティは、自殺法は英国人権法で保障されている彼女の人権を侵害しているという主張をし、高等法院、貴族院、そして欧州人権裁判所まで闘い続けたものの、けっきょく彼女の主張は認められず、敗訴後まもなく病気の悪化による呼吸困難で息を引き取った(1)。本稿ではこの二つの事件をめぐるシンガーとキーオンの見解を紹介する。
まず、シンガーは帰結主義と患者の自己決定を尊重する立場から、二つの判決が異なっていることを批判している。彼によれば、二つの事件の異なる判決は、 法的見地からすると (1)判断能力のある患者の治療拒否権と (2)自殺幇助の禁止という二つの原則からの当然の結果である。しかし、死ぬことがわかっていても治療を拒否する権利はあるが、治療の停止だけでは(少なくとも適切な仕方では)死ぬことができない場合に死ぬのを誰かに助けてもらう権利がないというのは、 倫理的見地からは意味をなさない。上の二つの原則を杓子定規に今回の事例に適用することは明らかに直観に反しているため、「われわれは規則に基づいた倫理(rule-based ethic)を超えて、われわれが直面する状況の帰結を考慮しなければならない」とシンガーは言う。彼の考えでは、安楽死を行なう自己決定権をMs Bとダイアン・プリティの両方に認めた場合、両者の帰結の間には重要な道徳的相違は存在しない。というのは、ダイアン・プリティに自殺幇助を認めた場合、彼女と同じような状況に置かれている人々がまわりから暗に自殺を強いられるおそれがあるとか、医者による安楽死の濫用が生じる可能性があると判決では示唆されていたが、それはMs Bのような治療拒否による安楽死でもまったく同じだからである。したがって、二つの事例は倫理的見地から見れば本質的に同様であり、一方の場合に患者の自己決定権を尊重するのであれば、他方の場合でもそうすべきであったとシンガーは結論している。
一方、キーオンは生命の神聖さを尊重する立場からMs Bに関する判決を批判している。彼の考えによると、この事例では、従来認められていた無益(futile)であるかまたは患者に耐えがたい負担を与える (burdensome)場合の治療の拒否権を超えて、患者が明白に自殺を意図して治療を拒否する権利 (および医師がそのような患者の願いを全うすること) を認めるに至っている。しかし、このような形で患者の死ぬ権利が認められるのであれば、ダイアン・プリティの事例のような自殺幇助も認められてしまうことになる。というのも、患者を死なせるという意図が同じであれば、その手段が作為か不作為か(積極的か消極的か)は道徳的にはなんら重要性を持たないからである。それゆえ、生命の神聖さを重視する立場からすれば、「無益であるか患者に耐えがたい負担を与える治療を拒否する正当な権利を判例によって拡大解釈し、自殺する権利とその幇助とを含むようにする」今回のMs Bに関する判決は誤っていたと彼は結論している。
シンガーとキーオンの二人の議論に共通しているのは、消極的安楽死(患者の治療拒否による安楽死)と積極的安楽死 (医者の自殺幇助による安楽死)との区別は実質的には意味をなさないという意見である(ただし、シンガーは両者の帰結には変わりがないとし、キーオンは両者の意図には変わりがないとしている)。実際、ボイドが述べているように、現場の医者はしばしばこの区別を役に立つものとして考えているが、今回のMs Bを担当していた医師の中には、人工呼吸装置を停止させることは殺人であり認められないと考える者もおり、そのため結局Ms Bは別の病院に移ってから安楽死を行なったのである (Boyd p. 211; cf. Slowther p. 243)。 他方、二人の議論で大きく異なっているのは、シンガーが患者の自己決定権を尊重し、いずれの患者も安楽死を許されるべきだったと論じているのに対し、キーオンは生命の神聖さを強調し、(ダイアン・プリティの安楽死はおろか) Ms Bの安楽死さえ許されるべきではなかったと論じている点である。今回の二つの事件はこれまでもしばしば問題にされてきた消極的安楽死と積極的安楽死という区別の居心地の悪さをあらためて際立たせると同時に、患者の自己決定権と生命の神聖さという、安楽死において鋭く対立する二つの重要な価値のいずれを優先させるかという問題をわれわれに突き付けていると言えよう。