The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-11-12

The plot Of Mrs. EDITH WHARToN's
latest novel, @The Fruit Of the Tree"
turns on the suggestion hat a nurse or
physician may be justified in morals in
administering a lethal dose Of poison to
shorten the agonies of DEATH where the
case Of the patient is hopeless.
This proposition has given rlseto much
| discussion in the medical journals and
in the press generally. The actseems by
many writer's to redeemed "a msrciful
shortening Of life" IA they call it,, Its
propriety is discussed with. the utmost
seriousness pro and con. and most of the
critics assume that it is entirely justifi-
able to produce ~euthanasia in this way,
provided the hopelessness Of recovery
is sufficiently clears If She patient is
certainly going TO die Of the malady
from which ne is suffering, they say in
substance, it is perfectly right for the
attending doctor to put him out of
misery sooner than nature would end his
pain if unassisted.
We wonder if any Of these good people
have ever thought TO inquire what the
law is on this subject, or il any Of them
il aware Of the fact that a physician
acting thus would be guilty Of deliberate
and premeditated murderi
The fact hat the slayer Of a human
being intends t. benefit the person slain
does not affect the criminal quality Of
his act in the eye OF the law in the slight
est degree. The law in certain expressly
defined cases p%ronounces homicide legal
or justifiable or excusable-as, for ex-
ample, when committed by a warden
or a Sheriff in the execution of the
death penalty pronounced by a court
Of justice or by an officer in endeavOr-
ing TO retake an escaping prisoner
charged with felony who resists arrest
or by a person acting in self-defence.
Except in these and similar cases, how
ever, no man can take the life of another
with a deliberate and prepeditated
design to effect the death 0fsthe person
killed without being guilty Of murder;
and so far as We know there is as yet
no jurisdiction in the world in which
exception has been made in favor
Of homicide committed by a medical
attendant for the purpose Of merei-
fully shortening the dying agOnies OF
his patient.
We are told that il is really not a very
important matter, inasmuch az il only
lessons the duration of a human life
probably by a very short period Of time.
But all that any murderer Eve does,
be he the most coldblOOded robber
who lies in wait for his victim, IL 10
shorten that victims life, and no one
can know with certainty how long that
life would have lasted in the absence
OF the fatal shot or blow. In the view
Of the law the physician who merci-
fully shortens his patients life by 70
fatal dose Of morphine is just IA guilty
of murder az any OF the most infamods
assassins OF tho great whose names
are recorded in history.
Whether the inflictiOn OF euthanasia
upon those believed to be dying Of an
incurab4e diseGse ought~Or"~ougst nc
TO be permitted by hw b acquisition
fairly open to debate by those who think
there are two sides to it. As for our
selves, we deny that medical science
has yet advanced far enough 10 enable
doctors to attain the necessary certainty
IA to the outeomeaof their patients case.
But however this may be, it cannot be
too clearly understood that as the law
now stands q doctor who Intentionally
shOrtens his patients life ven by a
single minute, by the administration Of
a drug designed for that purpose, is
guilty Of murder.