http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/stories/2008/06/03/2263841.htm
The court case concerning the euthanasia death of 71 year-old Graeme Wiley, who was mentally incompetent from Alzheimer’s disease, by his partner 59 year-old Shirley Justins is uncovering some important and very sad facts about the case.
The Crown is seeking a conviction for murder against Justins, while Justins has pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of aiding and abetting Wiley’s suicide.
Under cross-examination, Justins admitted that:
•she had a financial conflict of interest and Wiley’s death relieved her from her obligation to care for him.
• she admitted that she deliberately misled Wiley’s lawyer when she failed to tell him that Wiley had Alzheimer’s disease and was incompetent to make personal decisions. Wiley changed his will to give most of his estate to Justins less than a month before his death.
• she admitted that Wiley didn’t remember that he had daughters during his assessment in December 2005 which was four months before he changed his will to replace his daughters as the primary beneficiaries of his two million dollar estate.
• she also admitted that she paid 75-year-old Caren Jenning, more than $2,000 to get the drug (Nembutal) from Mexico for Mr Wiley.
Jenning has pleaded guilty to importing the euthanasia drug from Mexico but has pleaded not guilty to being an accessory to murder or aiding and abetting in a suicide.
Many people think that euthanasia and/or assisted suicide should be legal to give people a choice as to when and how their life should end.
The reality is that by legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide society is then changing the law by allowing a person to be directly involved in taking another person's life. Justins was able to fool Wiley’s lawyer into changing his will, even when he had mid- to late- stage Alzheimer’s disease.
Is it never possible to protect vulnerable people when the prohibition for killing others has been removed.
Some would say that we should legalize assisted suicide and then regulate it in order to protect vulnerable people from similar circumstances.
The reality is that vulnerable people are highly dependent on others for their basic care. It is for this reason that their would never be a regime whereby the vulnerable will be protected from legal assisted suicide.
Even Dr. Philip Nitschke, Australia’s leading euthanasia agitator, admitted to turning a blind eye to the fact that Wylie was incompetent to decide to die by euthanasia. So much for the idea that euthanasia and assisted suicide should made available to competent persons only.
Go to: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/nitschke-hell-bent-on-assisted-suicide.html
Finally, many people say, There have been no abuses in the State of Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, so why would there be abuses in other places?
The reality is that in 2007, 49 people died by assisted suicide in Oregon and none was sent for psychiatric or psychological assessment.
Since the Oregon reports are based on the information that is gleaned from the assisted suicide reports that are sent in from the physician who prescribes assisted suicide, and since those reports are destroyed after the report is published, therefore we will never be able to prove that Wiley type cases are not happening in Oregon.
Go to: http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2008/05/physician-assisted-suicide-pas-in.html
Those who favor the right to die need to re-think their position. The Wiley case is the prime example of why euthanasia and assisted suicide should never become legal because it is a direct threat to the lives of the most vulnerable members of society.