1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,000
Speaker 1: Right, let's focus on that issue that I highlighted a

2
00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: few moments ago. The organization Dignity Essay is going to

3
00:00:07,400 --> 00:00:09,799
Speaker 1: the High Court in Pretori. In fact, they filed an

4
00:00:09,840 --> 00:00:13,600
Speaker 1: application on Wednesday. They are looking to have laws that

5
00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:20,680
Speaker 1: currently criminalize medically assisted dying declared unconstitutional and invalid. Let's

6
00:00:20,680 --> 00:00:23,639
Speaker 1: find out their arguments then. In support of the application,

7
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:27,440
Speaker 1: we're joined by Professor William Lundmann, who is chairperson and

8
00:00:27,560 --> 00:00:31,840
Speaker 1: co founder of Dignity Essay. Welcome and thanks very much

9
00:00:31,880 --> 00:00:36,239
Speaker 1: for giving us your time. What is the problem the

10
00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:39,960
Speaker 1: reality that you're looking to address with this High court application?

11
00:00:40,080 --> 00:00:43,680
Speaker 2: Good day to you, Good day John, and thank you

12
00:00:43,720 --> 00:00:47,360
Speaker 2: for the opportunity. It's very simply boiled on to this

13
00:00:47,520 --> 00:00:53,400
Speaker 2: that they are individuals in our society who are either

14
00:00:53,520 --> 00:01:00,240
Speaker 2: terminally your or have an irremediable condition that come with

15
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:05,319
Speaker 2: suffering that is intractable and unbearable, and none of the

16
00:01:05,360 --> 00:01:08,760
Speaker 2: options available to them, none of the medical options available

17
00:01:08,800 --> 00:01:13,320
Speaker 2: to them can really satisfy their needs. In other words,

18
00:01:13,680 --> 00:01:18,160
Speaker 2: what has happened is that the equation that life is

19
00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:21,559
Speaker 2: good and death is bad has been inverted. For them,

20
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:25,680
Speaker 2: life is no longer good and it's irreversibly sold and

21
00:01:25,800 --> 00:01:29,039
Speaker 2: death is the only option, is the only solution, is

22
00:01:29,040 --> 00:01:34,000
Speaker 2: the only way out. Valiative care no longer helps. If

23
00:01:34,000 --> 00:01:39,040
Speaker 2: they refuse life sustaining treatment, they linger on, they continue

24
00:01:39,080 --> 00:01:44,240
Speaker 2: to live. Pain management is insufficient, does not work. Stopping

25
00:01:44,319 --> 00:01:48,400
Speaker 2: eating and drinking is also not an option, is a

26
00:01:48,440 --> 00:01:52,080
Speaker 2: cruel option. So we believe that there are people who

27
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:58,360
Speaker 2: die in dire circumstances and that the laws blanket prohibition

28
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:02,040
Speaker 2: of medical assistance in dying is unconstitutional.

29
00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:06,440
Speaker 1: One of the concerns, because we've had this conversation before,

30
00:02:06,480 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 1: it came up in twenty fifteen, it got to the

31
00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:13,239
Speaker 1: High Court, went to the Supreme Court of Appeal, so

32
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:17,400
Speaker 1: the discussion is out. Then. One of the issues of

33
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:20,880
Speaker 1: your raised by your opponents is that often people in

34
00:02:20,919 --> 00:02:25,440
Speaker 1: that situation may not have either the mental clarity or

35
00:02:25,520 --> 00:02:29,200
Speaker 1: the physical strengths to reach a decision, and there are

36
00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:33,119
Speaker 1: concerns that, for example, family members or people with ill

37
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:38,000
Speaker 1: intent might manipulate a decision like that. What's your answer

38
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:40,400
Speaker 1: to that concern, because I think it's there.

39
00:02:41,120 --> 00:02:44,960
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, it's the number of issues. The first is

40
00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:50,840
Speaker 2: that in any jurisdiction where medical assistance in dying is legal,

41
00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:54,720
Speaker 2: there are first of all, eligibility criteria you have to

42
00:02:54,800 --> 00:03:01,320
Speaker 2: qualify to receive medical assistance in dying, and there issues

43
00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:06,639
Speaker 2: of the mental capacity of freedom of action, et cetera.

44
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:10,000
Speaker 2: And having the condition and suffering, et cetera. So they're

45
00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:14,280
Speaker 2: eligibility criteria. And then there are safeguards put in place

46
00:03:14,360 --> 00:03:17,240
Speaker 2: to make sure that there is no abuse of the system.

47
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:21,799
Speaker 2: So all of this would have to be covered by legislation.

48
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:26,080
Speaker 2: If the Court instructs Parliament to write a law, this

49
00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:29,040
Speaker 2: will have to be addressed in a way that is appropriate,

50
00:03:29,480 --> 00:03:33,079
Speaker 2: appropriate for South Africa. On the question of abuse, you

51
00:03:33,400 --> 00:03:36,920
Speaker 2: you would appreciate that we you know, we submitted supporting

52
00:03:36,960 --> 00:03:39,840
Speaker 2: material of almost one thousand pages to the thought and

53
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:45,920
Speaker 2: we solicited the opinions of experts in several jurisdictions on

54
00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:49,240
Speaker 2: four different continents where they have implemented this, and we

55
00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:52,920
Speaker 2: ask them about their experiences and the reports that they

56
00:03:52,960 --> 00:03:57,280
Speaker 2: that they issued. What about abuse? Is it true? This

57
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:00,760
Speaker 2: is the factual question. Do people abuse it want to

58
00:04:00,760 --> 00:04:05,720
Speaker 2: inherit money or for whatever reason? And there's no systematic

59
00:04:05,840 --> 00:04:07,080
Speaker 2: evidence of that.

60
00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:11,320
Speaker 1: And just just a final question, and let's bring in

61
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:15,920
Speaker 1: now the fact that you are raising this as being unconstitutional.

62
00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:18,120
Speaker 1: One of our listeners said, in the Bill of Rights

63
00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:20,840
Speaker 1: is the right to life. I get that there are

64
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 1: other sections that look at security and control over one's body, dignity,

65
00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:29,919
Speaker 1: equality and so on. These rights are not, as I

66
00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:34,680
Speaker 1: understand it, hierarchical. They get contested in the process of

67
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:39,280
Speaker 1: the law and and the courts. But does this could

68
00:04:39,320 --> 00:04:41,919
Speaker 1: somebody use the right to life as some sort of

69
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 1: trump card. Always ultimately, the right to life something that you,

70
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:48,640
Speaker 1: as an individual also get to exercise.

71
00:04:49,640 --> 00:04:52,839
Speaker 2: That's an excellent question because we actually list the right

72
00:04:52,880 --> 00:04:55,080
Speaker 2: to life as one of the rights to support. We

73
00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:58,919
Speaker 2: believe support the right to medical assistance with dying. The

74
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:02,560
Speaker 2: right issue is not a biological right or a writer

75
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:07,120
Speaker 2: biological life. It is a right to have a life

76
00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:10,560
Speaker 2: that that's typically human. And this has been confirmed by

77
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:13,680
Speaker 2: the Constitutional Court where Judge Kat o' reagan made the

78
00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:17,680
Speaker 2: point that the right to life is entangled with is

79
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 2: the flip side of the right to dignity, and it's

80
00:05:21,279 --> 00:05:24,760
Speaker 2: only life, physical life that comes up to a certain

81
00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:27,840
Speaker 2: standard that is a you know, a life of dignity.

82
00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 2: So we it's an involved argument, John, But one of

83
00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:33,359
Speaker 2: the arguments we put forward is that the right to

84
00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:37,240
Speaker 2: life actually supports our claim together with and you talk

85
00:05:37,279 --> 00:05:40,719
Speaker 2: about a hierarchy. The interesting thing is judged very accamon

86
00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:44,080
Speaker 2: in a a in a seminal book on the Constitution

87
00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:47,320
Speaker 2: said that the right to dignity. Dignity is actually the

88
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:51,800
Speaker 2: load star of the Constitution, that it actually gives meaning

89
00:05:51,880 --> 00:05:54,240
Speaker 2: to all the other rights that flow from it. And

90
00:05:54,279 --> 00:05:56,320
Speaker 2: the right to life is not the fundamental but the

91
00:05:56,400 --> 00:05:58,680
Speaker 2: right right dignity is the fundamental right.

92
00:05:59,200 --> 00:06:02,200
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Professor Villain Landmann, chairperson and co

93
00:06:02,320 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 1: founder of Dignity essay papers filed in the Pretoria High

94
00:06:05,560 --> 00:06:09,080
Speaker 1: Court yesterday. The debate, well, I was going to say,

95
00:06:09,120 --> 00:06:11,880
Speaker 1: has begun. The debate has always been there, but this

96
00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:15,279
Speaker 1: gives us a framework for a really important and I

97
00:06:15,320 --> 00:06:19,440
Speaker 1: think profound conversations. Get it going yourself on oh seven

98
00:06:19,480 --> 00:06:21,719
Speaker 1: two seven oh two one seven oh two