Replies

Thank you for the update. I jumped to the conclusion--wrongly, I admit--that the socialized system of medicine in France led to the progression of her disease. Now I can only shake my head at her "chemicals are poison" way of thinking--poison, that is, until she wanted an accessory to her own murder.

This troubles me, from the article:

"That question of her personal decision in dealing with her disease early on in no way alters her right to a dignified death later in life, argues Emmanuel Debost, a general practitioner who treated and supported Sébire even before her fatal disease was diagnosed. "It also tries to discredit that right to a dignified end by suggesting my patient was somehow guilty in the terminal evolution of her disease."

I fail to understand how she was not guilty in the evolution of her disease. She refused acceptable, established treatment. As a result, her disease progressed. And why, why would this doctor have stood by her decision? This doesn't sound like a disease which is difficult in the diagnosing. This isn't like a pediatrician standing by a parent's decision to steer clear of Ritalin because his child may have something called ADHD. What this doctor did sounds like reckless endangerment.

I applaud the French for not caving in to her demands to be euthanized.