2023-10-27 14:48:39
Let’s start at the beginning: the Tine Nys file. The criminal court ruled on Tuesday after a very long procedure. To understand everything, it’s best to start from the beginning (or almost).
In January 2020, the first trial for euthanasia opened in our country, before the Ghent Assize Court. Three doctors appear in the dock. They are accused of murder by poisoning Tine Nys in April 2010. The young woman, aged 38, was euthanized due to mental suffering (you will find more information on her story here, and here) . Administrative shortcomings were noted. For example, Tine’s file arrived at the control commission very late, 51 days after her death instead of the 4 days provided for by law.
THE three doctors are finally acquitted. Among them, Joris Van Hove, the doctor who carried out the act, was acquitted.for the benefit of the doubt”.
The Nys family appeals cassation. The latter overturns the judgment of the Assize Court only for Joris Van Hove, on the grounds that the acquittal had not been sufficiently motivated. She refers the case to the Dendermonde criminal court. The prosecution does not appeal to the Court of Cassation. It is therefore only in civil that the case is examined in Dendermonde, the doctor no longer risks a fine or prison sentence, but the payment of damages to the civil parties.
Before ruling, the Dendermonde Criminal Court poses a preliminary question to the constitutional Court. In October 2022, the latter declares the law on euthanasia unconstitutional, at least partially. For what ? Because it provides for the same sanction for a person who does not respect the formal and procedural conditions provided for by law (such as declaring euthanasia to the Control Commission maximum 4 days after death) as for a person who does not respect the fundamental conditions that euthanasia must meet (such as the unbearable and unrelievable nature of the patient’s suffering). In both cases, failure to comply with the law qualifies as murder by poisoning. For the Constitutional Court, the application of a single incrimination is not reasonably justified.
The Dendermonde criminal court therefore ruled yesterday. Due to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, he considers that he cannot invoke a possible violation of procedures (form). He considers that he can only judge whether there has been a violation of the fundamental conditions (major patient, capable and conscious at the time of the request; voluntary, thoughtful and repeated request, without external pressure; serious and incurable accidental or pathological condition which causes unbearable and unrelievable physical or psychological suffering). In this case, the court is satisfied that these conditions were respected. He therefore considers that the doctor did not commit an offense in this regard, and that he should therefore not pay damages to Tine Nys’ family.
1698458852
#Euthanasia #Tine #Nys #affair #case #shows #revise #law