In the contemplation of euthanasia, the laws of physics and biology are as important as the laws of the land.
Nancy Crick killed herself on Wednesday night. She had terminal cancer. The dilemma she faced was one that faces nearly all people with terminal illness. The choice is to do nothing and allow nature to take its course. Invariably that means horrible pain or drugs to ameliorate the pain. That means a slow decline to physical incapacity. If her drugged state or her disease takes her to the point where she is physically incapacitated, she would lose the capacity to take her own life. She would lose the capacity to choose the time of her dying with her friends and family around her. So if she wants to die with family and friends around her at a time (within the limited time available) of her own choosing, it follows that she must do it while she has some physical and mental capacity.
It is a terrible dilemma. The choice to commit suicide while (of necessity) still capable of committing it means losing some precious time with family, friends and relatives. It requires an act of judgment. Nancy Crick had to make that judgment. She wanted to sacrifice as little life time as possible while retaining the capacity to exit life. Going to early would be a waste. Leaving it to late would result in losing the capacity to go and surrendering to a time of incapacity, drugged painlessness or undrugged pain.
The ideal option would be maximise the former and minimise the latter. That, however, requires an agent – someone who can end life at the point where cognitive life ends and before the epilogue of drugged incapacity or pain begin. Unfortunately, our law does not allow for that agent.
It is not an offence to commit suicide (as if it could be prosecuted) or to attempt to commit suicide. Section 16 of the ACT Crimes Act says, “”the rule of law that it is an offence for a person to commit, or to attempt to commit, suicide is abolished”. So if her physical capacity enables it she can commit suicide and the law is powerless. But Section 17 of the Crimes Act provides that “”a person aids or abets the suicide or attempted suicide of another person is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 10 years.”
But the whole point of the suicide exercise in the case of terminal illness is to avoid dying alone and to have people around to say goodbye to.
These other people, then, face the prospect of being charged with aiding and abetting. The 21 people who bore inactive witness to Nancy Crick’s death might face that prospect. They were there to say goodbye. Are they guilty of “”aiding and abetting” under Queensland law, which is similar to that in the ACT?
“”Aiding and abetting” is not a tautology. Aiding means to give help or assistance. It means some form of activity – the provision of physical aid or money – buying suicide drugs or administering them. Abetting means to encourage or countenance by approval. There is no requirement to buy the drugs or administer them. Nevertheless, the criminal law always requires some act. The approval has to be expressed somehow. Mere omission is never an offence. To stand by while someone commits suicide is not an offence.
So the 21 people who watched Crick die might find themselves charged with abetting suicide. I doubt it, though. I cannot find an Australian case where someone has been charged with either aiding or abetting suicide. Even if the case came to court, there are two great hurdles for a prosecution to overcome. First, is evidence. None of these 21 people will dob in the others, unlike other crimes where accomplices will dob in mates for easy treatment. Second is the jury. No jury will convict in a euthanasia case. There for the grace of god goes me or my loved one. So these 21 people will most likely not be charged despite the wasteful police resources investigating the death – while other grandmas are being robbed and burgled.
As for the suicide itself, no-one knows where the drugs came from. Presumably, they will become more widely available. Word of mouth is a great advertiser.
The Crick case therefore marks a watershed in the practice of euthanasia. Hitherto, euthanasia was usually a case of a doctor quite legally administering enough morphine to deal with pain that as an “”unintended side effect” killed the patient. By then the patient was in no condition to say goodbye. Death was lonely. The timing of final unconsciousness was unpredictable. Post Crick, in practice, anyone can get the drugs, say goodbye to loved ones and exit – provided they are willing to sacrifice a little time to ensure they are still strong enough to administer the drug.
The law of the land – which is so out of kilter with public opinion anyway – has been consumed by the laws of biology and physics.