Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Laws on euthanasia criticised during trial

Kathy Marks
Wednesday 16 September 1992 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A RETIRED physician yesterday told the trial of a consultant accused of attempting to murder a terminally ill patient that the law governing euthanasia placed doctors in an impossible position.

Alan Dixon, a former consultant physician specialising in rheumatology, told Winchester Crown Court he hoped he would have taken the same action as the defendant in similar circumstances.

Nigel Cox, 47, consultant rheumatologist at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester, denies attempting to murder Lillian Boyes, 70, in August last year by giving her a lethal dose of potassium chloride.

Mrs Boyes, a widow with acute rheumatoid arthritis and severe complications, died within minutes of the injection. She had been refusing treatment and had asked Dr Cox to help her die.

The court heard from two medical experts that she was close to death and in agonising pain despite being given heroin in such massive doses that it could have shortened her life, a practice regarded as medically proper.

Asked by Sydney Kentridge QC, for the defence, if he would have taken similar action to Dr Cox, Dr Dixon replied: 'I hope I would have had the courage to do so. I would have been ashamed of myself if I hadn't'

Under cross-examination by Neil Butterfield QC, for the prosecution, he said: 'The law leaves us in a very curious condition. We are allowed to give drugs to relieve pain even if they shorten life and at the same time we are not allowed to give drugs to shorten life even if they relieve pain.

'That's the sort of predicament we are in. It's a razor's edge.' Asked what further action could have been taken to control Mrs Boyes's pain, he said: 'Dr Cox had the option between walking away and doing what he did.'

David Blake, professor of rheumatology at the Royal London Hospital, told the court that Dr Cox, who he said had an 'exceptional reputation' in his field, had faced 'a terrible dilemma' because, most unusually, the heroin was not working and there was no stronger painkiller.

'In these extreme circumstances, you could feel sympathy for a doctor who walked away,' he said.

Asked what Dr Cox could have done, Professor Blake replied: 'One of his options was to do nothing more than give her a cuddle, but the consequence of that would have been to drop her blood pressure so low that she would have died within seconds.'

Professor Blake said that Mrs Boyes had been suffering from the worst case of rheumatoid arthritis of which he had heard. He agreed that it was proper to administer painkillers that could hasten a patient's death, saying: 'There are worse things than death.'

Mr Kentridge told the jury that the single issue that they had to consider was whether Dr Cox's primary intention when he injected Mrs Boyes with potassium chloride was to relieve her suffering or to kill her.

Although the deliberate shortening of life was unlawful, 'there are some situations where the law does not take such an absolute position . . . where the law is tempered with a very necessary humanity and common sense'.

Mr Kentridge said that when a patient was close to death, 'a doctor . . . has the right and indeed the duty to take all measures possible to relieve . . . suffering even though he knows that it will hasten that patient's death'.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in