Comments on: Will Kebble’s killers pursue a defence of assisted suicide?

By: Siobhan

Siobhan — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:48:54 +0000

Voluntary death vs suicide

I think it is important to distinguish between the violence of most suicides and the medically induced gradual shut down of the respiratory system that constitutes the legal method of hastening the death of the terminally ill in Switzerland, Holland and Oregon, USA.

There is peace and grace in putting the body to sleep so that consciousness (or soul, or psyche, whatever one might wish to call it) can free itself from the body. It also provides an opportunity for the family and/or close friends of the dying person to say good-bye whilst the loved one is still lucid and able to respond.

The despair of family members who ‘didn’t arrive in time’ to say ‘good-bye’ argues forcefully for the practice of medically assisted voluntary death where family members are present if they choose to be there. The overwhelming majority of those who have witnessed such deaths feel privileged to have done so free of the public trauma of hospital wards with their machines, tubes, and medical hustle and bustle that usually attends a death in the ‘West’.

Holland,Switzerland and Oregon have all put safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the process of assisted voluntary death. Insurers need to catch up and recognise that voluntary death under conditions of terminal illness is a legitimate practice and is not the same as suicide resulting from emotional causes.

It is time for us all to grow up.

By: Paul Young

Paul Young — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:08:04 +0000

Even if Kebble was murdered in an assisted suicide it was not for legitimate reasons. Behind the Kebble murder was an attempt to cover up the most fraudulent business transactions that have ever taken place in SA.
He was not terminally ill or suffering from any debilitating disease. So to compare this fraud to that of legimate peoples suffering is stupid. How the hell can you attempt to compare his death and the controversy surrounding his life and business dealings with that of seriously suffering people. Kebble died to prevent the extent of his fraud and criminal activity to ever become public knowledge. In the process he saved himself and his family (wife and kids – not father) major embarasment. Those who he freely donated to for his own personal ego, from stolen money, know who they are and know where the money came from, yet like all in the new SA have no conscience and will benefit wherever they can. The words “we did’nt join the struggle to be poor” spring to mind.

By: Michael Trapido

Michael Trapido — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:59:30 +0000

Frank my only reaction is and was that it was a disgrace to suggest that assisted suicide was the reason Kebble was killed.

Assisted suicide is there (if and when they allow it) for people who are desperately ill and with no real quality of life.

To use it as a defence for what transpired in Kebble’s case or anything remotely resembling it is legally unsound and in the poorest taste imaginable.

Yet it was purportdely raised.

By: Wineou

Wineou — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:55:27 +0000

Michael, I agree with your plea, and feel that South Africa could follow the lead of some progressive countries in allowing assisted suicide.

Paradoxically, she should continue to help save us from slow suicide by encouraging us not to smoke and drink ourselves to death. (Wineou likes wine, but in moderation.)

By: Frank Bayliss

Frank Bayliss — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:12:01 +0000

Michael, you are a specialist criminal attorney (the question, of course, begs, clapper firmly in cheek, whether there is another kind…)- would you employ this defence? I think it a great idea; would you please comment?

By: Kit

Kit — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:00:22 +0000

The Brett Kebble issue is an astute one to point out…since the point was (if that was the point) to make it look like it wasn’t even remotely suicide.

I can see life insurance companies rubbing their hands in glee already. Note how in auto insurance, for instance, you’ll frequently pay an excess twice as large if your car is hijacked than if it’s simply stolen. To pay for ‘false hijackings’ or to insinuate that you should have fought harder? Surely the former…can they really expect fighting? It looks like a wonderful opportunity to avoid some legitimate claims ready-made.

Besides, if the assisted suicide defence works here, we can always charge them with fraud (if that were the case then they must have known why that method and not something gentler). So in their particular case, assuming that one can prove that they did the act, they’re going away for something…

Failing to intubate someone and feed them or put them on a respirator is a totally different aspect though. One could ask the Department of Health how they feel about the ‘assisted suicide’ of babies born naturally at 22 weeks of gestation or provision of dialysis treatment for kidney patients. Cost/benefit analysis. If the state can do that analysis and make that decision on a purely monetary basis, why can’t I make it on my own behalf looking at my quality of life?