Hughes Jonathan A
School of Law, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
J Med Ethics. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106131.
In a recent Dutch euthanasia case, a woman underwent euthanasia on the basis of an advance directive, having first been sedated without her knowledge and then restrained by members of her family while the euthanasia was administered. This article considers some implications of the criminal court's acquittal of the doctor who performed the euthanasia. Supporters of advance euthanasia directives have welcomed the judgement as providing a clarification of the law, especially with regard to the admissibility of contextual evidence in interpreting advance euthanasia directives, but suggested that the law regarding advance euthanasia directives should be further relaxed to remove the requirement of current suffering and that an unfortunate consequence of the prosecution is that it is likely to deter doctors from performing euthanasia even in more straightforward cases. This article argues that the court's endorsement of the use of contextual evidence is problematic, that the case for prioritising prior decisions over current interests has not been advanced by the discussion surrounding this case and that worries about the alleged deterrent effect are not well founded.
在荷兰最近的一起安乐死案件中，一名女性依据预先指示接受了安乐死。她先是在不知情的情况下被注射了镇静剂，然后在实施安乐死时遭到家人的约束。本文探讨了刑事法庭宣判实施安乐死的医生无罪所带来的一些影响。预先安乐死指示的支持者对该判决表示欢迎，认为它澄清了法律，特别是在解释预先安乐死指示时关于背景证据的可采性方面，但他们建议，关于预先安乐死指示的法律应进一步放宽，取消当前痛苦这一要求，并且起诉带来的一个不幸后果是，它可能会使医生即使在更简单的情况下也不敢实施安乐死。本文认为，法庭对背景证据使用的认可存在问题，围绕此案的讨论并未推进优先考虑先前决定而非当前利益的理由，而且对所谓威慑效果的担忧也没有充分依据。
