以《权利法案》的适用为背景,描绘医生实施安乐死和医生协助自杀的普通法发展历程

Q3 Social Sciences
Ntokozo Mnyandu
{"title":"以《权利法案》的适用为背景,描绘医生实施安乐死和医生协助自杀的普通法发展历程","authors":"Ntokozo Mnyandu","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Pretoria High Court is considering whether to recognise a right to physician-assisted death. This is a right to request a physician to administer a lethal prescription which a terminally ill patient can use to end their lives or to be allowed to obtain a lethal prescription which they will self-administer. In deciding the matter, the court will have to determine whether it should remove the common law prohibition on both ways of bringing about a quick and painless death. The question that will have to be answered is whether the common law prohibition is consistent with the Constitution. If it is not, the court will either develop the common law or leave it to Parliament to remove the inconsistency. However, before the court can begin this work it would have to decide on the correct approach to the application of the Bill of Rights to the common law principles of murder and culpable homicide. In effect it would have to decide how sections 8(1), 8(3) and or section 39(2) of the Constitution apply to the dispute.\nThis research explores how these operational provisions should apply when assessing the constitutionality of the right to physician-assisted death. In effect it argues that during this process the court must always have regard to section 39(2), irrespective of whether there is a direct application or an indirect application of the Bill of Rights to the common law. Its application arises under section 8(1), where the court is asked to declare the common law invalid on the basis of being in direct violation of a constitutional right. It also applies in situations where the court is asked to develop the common law under section 8(3). Lastly, it is applicable where the common law is challenged for being in indirect conflict with the spirit, purport and object of the Constitution. Having established the role of section 39(2) in both the direct and indirect application of the Bill of Rights, the paper concludes by critically analysing the remedies that attend each of the operational provisions in relation to the common law prohibition on physician-assisted death.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"174 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping the Common Law Development of Physician- Administered Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide against the Background of the Application of the Bill of Rights\",\"authors\":\"Ntokozo Mnyandu\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14300\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Pretoria High Court is considering whether to recognise a right to physician-assisted death. This is a right to request a physician to administer a lethal prescription which a terminally ill patient can use to end their lives or to be allowed to obtain a lethal prescription which they will self-administer. In deciding the matter, the court will have to determine whether it should remove the common law prohibition on both ways of bringing about a quick and painless death. The question that will have to be answered is whether the common law prohibition is consistent with the Constitution. If it is not, the court will either develop the common law or leave it to Parliament to remove the inconsistency. However, before the court can begin this work it would have to decide on the correct approach to the application of the Bill of Rights to the common law principles of murder and culpable homicide. In effect it would have to decide how sections 8(1), 8(3) and or section 39(2) of the Constitution apply to the dispute.\\nThis research explores how these operational provisions should apply when assessing the constitutionality of the right to physician-assisted death. In effect it argues that during this process the court must always have regard to section 39(2), irrespective of whether there is a direct application or an indirect application of the Bill of Rights to the common law. Its application arises under section 8(1), where the court is asked to declare the common law invalid on the basis of being in direct violation of a constitutional right. It also applies in situations where the court is asked to develop the common law under section 8(3). Lastly, it is applicable where the common law is challenged for being in indirect conflict with the spirit, purport and object of the Constitution. Having established the role of section 39(2) in both the direct and indirect application of the Bill of Rights, the paper concludes by critically analysing the remedies that attend each of the operational provisions in relation to the common law prohibition on physician-assisted death.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"174 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14300\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比勒陀利亚高等法院正在考虑是否承认医生协助死亡的权利。这是一种请求医生开具致死处方的权利,身患绝症的病人可以使用这种处方结束自己的生命,或者被允许获得由他们自行开具的致死处方。在对这一问题做出裁决时,法院必须确定是否应取消普通法对这两种快速无痛死亡方式的禁止。必须回答的问题是,普通法的禁令是否符合宪法。如果不一致,法院要么发展普通法,要么让议会来消除不一致。然而,在法院开始这项工作之前,它必须决定对谋杀和过失杀人的普通法原则适用《权利法案》的正确方法。实际上,法院必须决定《宪法》第 8(1)条、第 8(3)条或第 39(2)条如何适用于这一争议。本研究探讨了在评估医生协助死亡的权利是否符合宪法时,这些操作条款应如何适用。实际上,本研究认为,在这一过程中,无论《权利法案》是直接适用于普通法还是间接适用于普通法,法院都必须始终考虑第 39(2)条。第 8 条第(1)款规定了第 39 条第(2)款的适用范围,即要求法院以直接违反宪法权利为由宣布普通法无效。它还适用于根据第 8(3)条要求法院发展普通法的情况。最后,它还适用于普通法因与《宪法》的精神、宗旨和目标间接冲突而受到质疑的情况。在确定了第 39(2)条在《权利法案》的直接和间接适用中的作用后,本文最后批判性地分析了与普通法禁止医生协助死亡相关的每项实施条款的补救措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mapping the Common Law Development of Physician- Administered Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide against the Background of the Application of the Bill of Rights
The Pretoria High Court is considering whether to recognise a right to physician-assisted death. This is a right to request a physician to administer a lethal prescription which a terminally ill patient can use to end their lives or to be allowed to obtain a lethal prescription which they will self-administer. In deciding the matter, the court will have to determine whether it should remove the common law prohibition on both ways of bringing about a quick and painless death. The question that will have to be answered is whether the common law prohibition is consistent with the Constitution. If it is not, the court will either develop the common law or leave it to Parliament to remove the inconsistency. However, before the court can begin this work it would have to decide on the correct approach to the application of the Bill of Rights to the common law principles of murder and culpable homicide. In effect it would have to decide how sections 8(1), 8(3) and or section 39(2) of the Constitution apply to the dispute. This research explores how these operational provisions should apply when assessing the constitutionality of the right to physician-assisted death. In effect it argues that during this process the court must always have regard to section 39(2), irrespective of whether there is a direct application or an indirect application of the Bill of Rights to the common law. Its application arises under section 8(1), where the court is asked to declare the common law invalid on the basis of being in direct violation of a constitutional right. It also applies in situations where the court is asked to develop the common law under section 8(3). Lastly, it is applicable where the common law is challenged for being in indirect conflict with the spirit, purport and object of the Constitution. Having established the role of section 39(2) in both the direct and indirect application of the Bill of Rights, the paper concludes by critically analysing the remedies that attend each of the operational provisions in relation to the common law prohibition on physician-assisted death.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信