An Awkward Situation

MOST of us in Australia have been following the Korp case in Victoria. It is a very unpleasant case where Maria Korp was assaulted and left in the boot of a car. She was found alive but in a serious state and had been kept alive by medical assistance.Mrs Korp was placed under the administration of the Victorian Public Advocate. He recently provided orders to the medical authorities to stop the artificial means of feeding her.
This has raised legal questions as to whether that intervention by the Public Advocate and Mrs Korp's subsequent death mean that Mrs Korp's husband should be charged with murder. Another issue that arises is the extent to which people should be kept alive by artificial means – should there have been a faster means to end her life?
The case proceeds in Victoria, but we can examine it to illustrate what could happen in South Australia. In SA, the violence of a defendant need not be the sole cause of a death, provided that the act was a significant contributor to the victim dying.
Thus, if I was in SA and shot somebody intending to kill them and they lay in a coma and then died, a jury should find me guilty of murder. The person might have had cancer, but if by shooting them I significantly contributed to their death, I should be found guilty.
The question of whether the intervention by the doctors to stop artificial feeding would break a causal chain between the act of violence towards Mrs Korp and her eventual death arises.
Would the doctors be liable?
SA has legislation that means the medical practitioners are not under a duty to use life-sustaining measures in treating patients if the effect of using them would be to merely prolong life in a moribund state without any real prospect of recovery. This state is called a "persistent vegetative state".
A person can use a medical directive to say that they would want to be kept in that state and ask doctors to use all the powers that they have to preserve their life.
The point is, in SA the doctor would not be liable for any criminal act by ceasing to use artificial means to keep the person alive, unless the person had asked to be kept alive. The SA law preserves the dignity of people in those situations, respecting their rights to make decisions, and protecting the medical practitioners. It even forbids publication of photographs, which would avoid the unseemly publicity that followed the case involving Ms Schiavo in America.
If a decision is made to stop treatment, there can be no question that the person will die. Their death will be managed by the palliative medical specialists so as to minimise pain and discomfort. However, if that point is reached, should it be possible to administer a sufficient dosage of a drug to bring the unfortunate person's life to an end quickly, or instantly? Could a person give such an order in advance in a medical directive?
The answer at present is no. These are not legal issues but very significant moral issues.
The fact is that once the artificial feeding stops, the victim will die. The question is whether that process should take something over two weeks, or ten minutes.
The staggering issue arising out of the Korp case itself is that she had a family and a life. Through foul deeds she has now died. How could people let that happen?
till next time, Michelle.