Assisted Suicide Court Case – Application for Leave to Appeal

“Notice of Leave to Appeal” to the Supreme Court of South Africa against the whole of the judgement handed down by Judge Fabricius on the 4th of May 2015. Doctors For Life International will be part of this appeal as a “Friend of the Court” Judge Fabricius got it wrong in finding that the South African Law Reform Commission’s 1998 report on Euthanasia and the preservation of life  recommended that voluntary active euthanasia be introduced into South Africa, subject to certain safeguards. The report in question actually recommended that; “There be no change to the current law in SA prohibiting active voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and that such approach was predicated on the Law Commission’s acute awareness of the array of competing interests and the diverse social, moral and ethical values involved regarding law reform on the issue of active voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.”  “The arguments in favor of legalizing voluntary euthanasia as insufficient reason to weaken society’s prohibition of intentional killing as entrenched in section 11 of the Constitution which is considered to be the cornerstone of the law and of social relationships.” In almost all cases palliative medical treatment is available and it improves the terminally ill patients’ condition for a prolonged period of time. With modern medicine, including high doses of opioid drugs, less than 10{01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4} of patients similarly placed as Mr Stansham-Ford die of pain. Hospice doctors and staff specializing in symptom control of terminal patients can be provided at the home in the vast majority of cases. The result is that a terminally ill patient’s quality of life can be vastly improved and as such, they could spend the last days of their life under quality medical care, surrounded by loved ones at home if they so choose. It is not “our right to die”. Dying is inevitable; it is the natural end of life. We are all born and we all die. No person or doctor should be given the power to decide when a person dies. It is our right and the doctor’s duty to make sure that terminally ill patients suffer as little as possible through using specialized pain treatment. And it is the family’s responsibility to support their kin with their love and care.]]>

Holland – Another "ground breaking court decision" The Genie is out of the Bottle

In another ground-breaking court decision the Dutch Appeals Court has ruled that a doctor does not have to be involved to allow assisted suicide. Albert Heringa assisted his mother in 2008 by helping her overdose herself. Judge Anhem has ruled that Heringa followed his unwritten moral duty to help his 99-year-old mother commit suicide.

Fiona Zonneveld of the Dutch Association for Voluntary Euthanasia said the decision is a step in the direction they wanted to go. Originally countries passed euthanasia laws to allow people with terminal illnesses to choose assisted suicide at the end of their lives. Since then, Holland has moved down the slippery slope and allowed people with chronic physical conditions, later for mental conditions and, more recently, for babies when treatment is considered “medically futile”.  One is reminded of the case of Tom Mortier’s mother in Belgium who was euthanized for “untreatable depression”.  Mortier was not informed of his mother’s condition until the day after her death. In the words of Theo Boer: “I used to be a supporter of legislation (to legalize euthanasia). But now, with 12 years of experience, I take a different view. At the very least, wait for an honest and intellectually satisfying analysis of the reasons behind the explosive increase in the numbers. Is it because the law should have had better safeguards? Or is it because the mere existence of such a law is an invitation to see assisted suicide and euthanasia as normality instead of a last resort? Before those questions are answered, don’t go there. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is not likely to ever go back in again.”   _67084273_euthanasia-splProfessor Boer was a member of a Regional Review Committee for the Dutch government which first motivated for and later regulated euthanasia in The Netherlands. He had written in 2007: “There doesn’t have to be a ‘slippery slope’ when it comes to euthanasia. A good euthanasia law, in combination with the euthanasia review procedure, provides the warrants for a stable and relatively low number of cases”. All this sounds so similar to the arguments for euthanasia in South Africa. Are we about to let the genie out of the bottle like Holland has?]]>

Assisted Suicide – DFL not happy with Courts decision

Press Release – Court’s decision on Assisted Suicide.

Firstly DFL would like to send our condolences to the family and loved ones of Robert Stransham Ford,who passed away this morning, may he rest in peace. Secondly DFL would also like to thank Reg Willis, Adrian De’Oliviera and Robin Twaddle Attorneys for all there hard work and time they have devoted to the caseeuthanasia-live-without---copy Doctors For Life International is very disappointed with the judge’s decision over the planned assisted suicide. DFL has established that the three state Respondents and the Health Professions Council intend to appeal and 2 June 2015 has been arranged with the judge for argument for leave to appeal. DFL is considering appealing the judge’s refusal to admit DFL as a party to the proceedings and only admitting DFL as amici curiae. People who are terminally ill are at an extremely vulnerable stage of their lives. They often go through periods of deep depression, which is often over looked, but fully treatable. DFL would like to discourage organizations from using people at such vulnerable periods to gain publicity and to promote there agenda. It is not reasonable to introduce radical legislation on the perceived needs of a minority that could end up being lethal for the majority of the population. It is setting a dangerous double standard to say suicide under certain conditions is acceptable while discouraging suicide as a whole. SA ranks 5th in the world amongst countries with the highest prevalence of suicide. On a national level the Department of Health is battling an epidemic of teenage suicide. How are we going to prevent the spread of suicide contagion and discourage suicide amongst teenagers who feel that there life is unbearable, for what ever reasons, while at the same time send out an official message that suicide for some is acceptable. Take this in context with the present day situation in SA with extreme violence, more than 40 murders committed each day. In the words of Professor Daniel J Ncayiyana, former editor of the SAMJ in 2012; “Mob justice, police brutality and xenophobia abound. Needless deaths occur regularly in our hospitals through staff neglect and indifference. Health care providers think nothing of downing tools and walking off, abandoning critically ill patients, or of blocking ambulances with critical emergencies from entering health facilities during labor disputes. In the circumstances, euthanasia cannot be at the top of the wish-list of things that must be accomplished in order to improve the human condition of South Africans.” Coercion will also be too subtle to control. Research has shown that even the way in which a doctor describes the treatment options for someone with cancer can encourage a person to ask for euthanasia. With regards to family the only thing that’s necessary for a family member who wants to inherit something from the terminally ill patient is to hint, at the bedside, that he/she is a burden to the family. This kind of pressure is often too much to handle and the patient will feel there is only one choice and that is to ask for an assisted death. Legalized euthanasia also provides a financial incentive for premature deaths. It will always be cheaper to kill than to provide palliative care over long periods of time. In countries where euthanasia is legal there have been cases where medical aid schemes have said that they cannot cover the costs for breast cancer treatment but physician assisted suicide is covered. What choice does this really leave the person with who has to choose between suffering without treatment or assisted suicide? DFL is disappointed that this European trend which is so foreign to the African way of thinking is being forced onto our society by a small minority. Doctors for Life International is an organisation of 1400 medical doctors, specialists and professors of medicine from Medical Faculties in South Africa and abroad. DFL provides expert evidence on various issues of medical and medical-ethical importance. Since 1991 DFL has been actively promoting sound science in the medical profession and health care that is safe and efficient for all South Africans. http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Doctors-for-Life-disappointed-in-assisted-suicide-ruling-20150501]]>

Supreme Court dismisses ODM pornography appeal

Media Release: Doctors for Life International is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed with costs the application of On Digital Media t/a Starsat (previously TopTV), to appeal against the Cape High Court decision setting aside the decision of ICASA authorising the broadcasting of pornography on two of their South African television channels. Hopefully Doctors for Life will now be allowed to present conclusive scientific neurological evidence that has developed on the destructive effects and addictive nature of pornography on the brain, to ICASA. Doctors for Life International represents more than 1500 medical doctors and specialists in South Africa and abroad. DFL has commented extensively on these issues and has made submissions to the Constitutional Court and the Law Reform Commission in the past. For more information visit www.dfl.org.za DFL is represented by Attorneys Steve Schneider and Naomie Marais who instruct Advocates Reg Willis and Albert Mooi.]]>

Cannabis: Colorado state releases report

The committee’s work represents one of the first and most comprehensive reviews to assess the strength of credible scientific literature available today regarding marijuana use,” said Dr. Larry Wolk, the executive director and chief medical officer at the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. DFL has in the constitutional court testified in 2002 about the negative effects of cannabis use and the legalization there of. If it was not for this testimony we might today have pilots flying planes, doctors performing surgery and emergency/rescue services all working under the influence of cannabis. In 2001 Colorado State USA started a gradual legalization of cannabis beginning with medicinal use and ending with recreational use in January 2014. The ‘slippery slope’ effect this has had on the state of Colorado is nothing short of shocking. To mention a few key facts; Hospital visits for possible cannabis exposures in children 9 years and older increased by 86 {01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4}. Casualty visits went up by 69.4 {01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4}. Hospital visits for children 9 years and younger increased 5-fold (500{01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4}). Casualty visits increased by more than 3-fold (300{01b0879e117dd7326006b2e84bcaac7e8fa1509c5c67baf2c9eb498fe06caff4}). A Colorado state panel, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) set up to review the health effects of cannabis warned citizens about the dangers of using the drug during pregnancy, while driving and during adolescence and young adulthood. This report confirms what Doctors for Life International has already been stating regarding the wide spread effect this form of legalization can have on government as well as the different population groups of society as a whole. The report also found preliminary evidence to suggest that legalization in the state had resulted in increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits and poison centre calls possibly related to cannabis use. This proves to demonstrate a principal which was well researched by the American Society of Addictive Medicine (ASAM): The so called money from taxation the USA would obtain from legalization of cannabis is dwarfed by the expenses incurred by the medical and criminal justice systems involved. These expenses come directly from the various related effects attributed to the use of cannabis as proved by ASAM and the CDPHE report. For years, a lack of scientific research led to inconsistent ideas about the drug’s negative health effects among users. Today, scientific literature has advanced beyond such claims. Though it is far from complete scientists have repeatedly found short-term memory effects lasting up to a week after heavy cannabis use by the adult population. DFL would like to bring such information to the public in order to better educate the citizens of our country especially in light of South Africa’s current effort to legalize cannabis use. For specific population groups the use of cannabis has clear negative impacts, the Retail Marijuana Public Advisory Committee found in the review of scientific literature, the rate of motor vehicle crashes in Colorado, for instance, doubled. They also found that maternal use during pregnancy was associated with negative effects on exposed offspring, “Including decreased academic ability, cognitive function and attention.” Some effects may not appear until adolescence. ”We found SUBSTANTIAL evidence that adolescent and young adult marijuana users are more likely than non-users to use and be addicted to illicit drugs in adulthood.”-CDPHE. This statement applies to all races surveyed (Indian, Latin, Asian, African and White American).This further enforces DFL’s stance on cannabis being a gateway drug to harder substance abuse. Use by teens is also associated with decreased school performance and memory impairments that last as long as 28 days after use. There is also a demonstrated association between early and heavy use and the development of mental disorders like schizophrenia in adulthood among certain populations. Adult use in Colorado is now higher than the rest of the USA, according to two surveys included in the report. This report released by the CDPHE shows the effects of legalization of cannabis over a prolonged period of time on the state/country and the people involved that are using cannabis for either medicinal or recreational use. By using data available to us such as the CDPHE report which outlines the negative effects of the legalization of cannabis on society as a whole, we can stop the same statistics/effects being attributed to our children here in South Africa. The CDPHE report is available to be viewed at- https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/DC_MJ-Monitoring-Health-Concerns-Related-to-Marijuana-in-CO-2014.pdf Doctors for Life International represents more than 1400 medical doctors and specialists, three-quarters of whom practice in South Africa. Since 1991 DFL has been actively promoting sound science in the medical profession and health care that is safe and efficient for all South Africans.]]>

Porn Channel Courtcase Goes Against StarSat TV (press release)

On-Digital-Media-ODM-logoDoctors For Life is delighted with the outcome of the Court Application in the Western Cape High Court, challenging the licensing of On Digital Media T/A StarSat aka TopTV (ODM)  to broadcast the first three porn channels ever in South Africa. This court case has come out on the side of women, children and families in South Africa who are the ones most harmed by pornography. Even though we are fully aware that the Internet is by far the biggest provider of porn in South Africa, it does not justify adding three TV channels to the existing stream of smut pouring into the country (which is barely filtered in South Africa, other than in many western countries e.g. Britain and the USA). It is now well established scientifically that pornography is addictive and destructive to the human brain and especially to the brains of minors. As result sexual and related violence against woman and children is facilitated. Judge Lee Bozalek upheld the challenge of DFL (and two other applicants CFJ and JASA)  against ICASA’s decision. DFL complained that ICASA had not considered the real effects of pornography and its addictive qualities on people, as a result of ICASA’s defective decision making process and the effect of committing a material error of Law, when it licensed ODM to broadcast pornography. ODM forced DFL to defend its evidence of the harmful effects of pornography on all people and on woman and children in particular (DFL had the assistance of numerous international medical specialists on the effects of pornography including neurosurgeons, researchers and Psychiatrists and DFL’s evidence is based on well-established science) and to traverse the often paedophilic tendencies of the progenitors and promoters of pornography. The Judge upheld the review ground that ICASA committed a material error of Law. The Judge found on the facts of ODM’s application to ICASA  that Sec 24A(3) of the Film and Publications Act was a law of general application and in all the circumstances a criminal provision had been breached. Pursuing a criminal charge and prosecution is being considered by DFL. Advocates Reg Willis and Albert Mooij appeared on behalf of DFL duly instructed by SJM Attorneys. Doctors for Life International, represents more than 1400 medical doctors and specialists, three-quarters of whom practice in South Africa. Since 1991 DFL has been actively promoting sound science in the medical profession and health care that is safe and efficient for all South Africans. For more information visit: https://doctorsforlife.co.za]]>

Doctors For Life goes to court on Monday 11 August (press release)

Issues to be heard include: The Application is, in the first instance, a Review of the decision of ICASA, with a request to court to set aside the license, on the grounds that incorrect procedure was followed, amongst others:

  • That the procedure followed by ICASA to deal with the TopTV application was procedurally flawed and unfair;
  • That the advert which ICASA published in the Government Gazette (which it was obliged to do), inviting the public to make submissions, did not mention in the advert that the TV channels which ODM applied for were to broadcast pornographic material; further, the advert, which required the public to make its submissions within 30 days, was published in December, which required the public to respond during the period when most people take their holidays, that is in December and January.It is interesting to note that despite the inconvenient time the public was expected to respond in, there were close to 600 written submissions by the public, the vast majority of which were against the granting of the license applied for; one wonders how much greater the response would have been if the Notice was published a different time of the year.
  • That during the hearing ICASA determined that those, who had requested to make oral representation before the Council set up by ICASA for this purpose, may only have 10 minutes each to put their case, whereas ODM was given 90 minutes to put its case as well as more time for their so-called expert witness Ms Wasserman, a sex-therapist, to make her input as well. DFL’s experts were not allowed sufficient time and/or invited to put forward their scientific and medical evidence on the harmful effects of pornography on the human brain, before the Council;
  • That most members of the 7 member Council Committee set up by ICASA to hear the oral submissions were not suitably qualified to be on the Committee. This was apparent from the type and amount of questions such members posed to ODM, which were hopelessly insufficient to enable ICASA to come to a proper decision;
  • That one of the institutions that had made application to make oral representation before ICASA’s Council, was the Film and Publications Board. The Council, however, at the request of ODM, did not allow the Film and Publications Board to make oral representations, even when ICASA was in terms of the legislation it functions by, obliged to consider the input of the Film and Publications Board.(Whose submission, by the way, was in opposition to the granting of the license.)
  • That other existing legislation that prohibits the broadcasting of pornography by television channels was not properly or fully taken into consideration;
  • That the bias which ICASA showed at the hearing was so blatant that it can be concluded that ICASA had failed to carry out its mandate and also shows that it acted in bad faith.
DFL is of the opinion that, as DFL was at the hearing and had compelling, non-moralistic, medical and scientific evidence to put before the hearing of the harmful effects of pornography on the brain, comparable to the effects of hard-line drugs such as LSD, heroin and cocaine, DFL was not given adequate opportunity to put this evidence before ICASA. DFL will place before court scientific and medical evidence on the harmful effect of pornography by way of five expert witnesses as follows: Mr Iyavar Chetty: formerly Director of the Film and Publications Board who testifies as to the reasons for existing legislation to protect society, and especially children, against pornography Other experts include, Dr Donald Hilton, Prof. Tuviah Zabow,Professor Mary Anne Leyden and Prof Riesman Further arguments on the merits will include :
  • that there is a real danger that children will have access to the 3 channels, as security measures put onto place to control access to the channels are ineffective;
  • that pornography broadcasted in any format, leads to increased violence against women and children and also affects their constitutional rights.
In summary: pornography is medically proven to be harmful to the brain, both for adults but especially for children, causing structural damage to the brain with enormous consequences for the individual and ultimately for society as a whole. It also has an addictive effect on the human being that can be likened to hard drugs, which addiction is difficult to overcome without specialized and intensive treatment. On top of that DFL has provided expert evidence that demonstrates the security measures to be hopelessly insufficient. That especially so in the light of the fact that the computer skills of minors most of the time far exceeds that of their parents. Added to that is the fact that bringing porn into the living rooms of South African households and expecting parents to send the kids out off the room certain times of the day, having to lock the doors and close the curtains so that the kids can’t peep at the shows, is bizarre harmful to any family.]]>