Man who sparked euthanasia debate dies

It isn’t quite New York personal injury law, but sufficiently interesting to deserve note: An Italian patient that wanted to die by being pulled off his respirator. Since we see “right to die” issues all the time where medicine meets the law, I wanted to share this one:

ROME – A paralyzed man at the center of a right-to-die debate in this overwhelmingly Roman Catholic nation died after he was taken off his respirator, days after an Italian court issued a contentious ruling in the case.

Piergiorgio Welby, 60, died late Wednesday, said Dr. Mario Riccio, the physician who removed the respirator. Riccio said Thursday that Welby had a constitutionally guaranteed right to refuse treatment.

“This must not be mistaken for euthanasia. It is a suspension of therapies,” said Riccio, who volunteered to remove the respirator and was not involved in Welby’s medical care. “Refusing treatment is a right.”

On Saturday, a Rome judge recognized Welby’s right to refuse treatment but ruled that doctors were not obligated to take measures that would result in the patient’s death — even at the patient’s request.

U.S. law generally permits patients to ask that medical treatment be withheld or withdrawn, even if it raises their risk of dying. Voters in Oregon went further and approved the first physician-assisted suicide law in the U.S. in 1994, but it is now under legal challenge.

In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize voluntary euthanasia — where patients are killed at their request to ease suffering, even in cases where they might survive without treatment. Belgium legalized it under strict conditions in 2002.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Kings County Hospital. Women Dies in ER. And It’s On Video
  2. Woman Falls From Operating Room Table and Dies
  3. Long Island Jury Awards 251K to Animal Rights Activist

Tags:

No Responses Leave a comment

Leave a Reply


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.