Mercy killing: yes, no, and why?April 26, 2014 12:03 am

byAmado S. Tolentino Jr.Possibly the first in the history of the Congress of the Philippines, a voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing and living will-related proposal known as Senate Bill No. 1887 or the Natural Death Act was filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. The bill seeks to recognize the fundamental right of adult persons to decide their own health care, including the decision to have life-sustaining treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition.Over the past two decades, an end-of-life policy unfolded quietly in some parts of the world. In the US, the Death With Dignity Act (1994) in Oregon allows doctors to write legal prescriptions for terminally ill patients who want to control the time and place of their death. To qualify under the law, the patient should be fully conscious and able to administer his own overdose. In Europe, Belgium is set to be the second country after The Netherlands to allow terminally ill children over 12 years old facing unbearable physical suffering and repeatedly makes the request to be officially killed. Belgium and Switzerland have legalized euthanasia for many years but only for people over the age of 18. The Netherlands have legalized euthanasia for adults and children over 12 years for the past twelve years.Mercy killing or euthanasia was a favorite topic of debate in Philippine law schools during the last fifty years or so. Now that a bill is with the Senate, among many questions Filipinos wish to be answered to have an in-depth understanding of the subject that will enable them to make an informed yes or no and why in case of renewed debates, survey or referendum, are: What is euthanasia or mercy killing ? What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary mercy killing ? What is a living will? May human life be shortened legally? Should one kill another in mercy, or is life, however hard too dear to lose? What is the rule in our jurisdiction on mercy killing and assisted suicide? Is the mercy motive an element of a crime or defense to its existence? Out of compassion for a suffering patient, must we legalize euthanasia altogether? Out of compassion for the actor, must we mitigate the harshness of formal law under which euthanasia is treated as deliberate killing?If an individual has the right to live, does he also have the right to die? If there is a right to privacy, does it include the right to die? Does the right to decide ones health care include the right to decide to end ones life? Is there a right to kill? Is there a point at which an incurable illness becomes a living death? If so, is it permissible for someones life to be deliberately cut off ? What are the religious, non-religious and medical views about euthanasia?When does human life end? What is brain death? Is persistent vegetative state the same as being brain dead? When is a person legally and medically dead? What is an acceptable legal and medical definition of terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition? Who has the right to make the decision to end lifethe patient, the spouse, the parents, the doctor/team of doctors or the courts? Who should pull the plug? A black hooded executioner?The complex life-and-death problems raised by the scientific advances in the field of medicine have no simple answers. Intimately involved in the issues besides physicians and lawyers are theologians, the courts, lawmakers, psychologists, sociologists, ethicists among others. Expert advice is needed from many fields on this culture-of-life vs. emerging end-of-life policy.Former Ambassador Amado S. Tolentino Jr. belongs to UP Law 63 where his undergraduate thesis was Is there a right to die ? A study of the law on euthanasia published by the Philippine Law Journal at the height of the comatose Karen Ann Quinlan case in the US during the early l970s. He is a governor of the Philippine Ambassadors Foundation.

fforts to changegovernment policiesoneuthanasiaof human lives in the 20th and 21st centuries have met limited success inWestern countries. Human euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety ofNGOs, most notably medical associations and advocacy organizations. As of June 2015, human euthanasia is legal only in theNetherlands,Belgium,Colombia[1]andLuxembourg.Assisted suicideis legal inSwitzerland,Germany,Japan,Albaniaand in theUSstates ofWashington,Oregon,Vermont,New MexicoandMontana.Human euthanasia was criminalized inMexico,Thailand, and theNorthern Territoryof Australia.Contents[hide] 1Euthanasia law by country 1.1Australia 1.2Belgium 1.3Canada 1.4Colombia 1.5Denmark 1.6Finland 1.7France 1.8India 1.9Ireland 1.10Israel 1.11Japan 1.12Luxembourg 1.13Mexico 1.14Netherlands 1.15New Zealand 1.16Norway 1.17Philippines 1.18Switzerland 1.19Sweden 1.20Turkey 1.21United Kingdom 1.22United States 1.23Uruguay 2Non-governmental organizations 3References 4External linksEuthanasia law by country[edit]Australia[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in AustraliaEuthanasia is illegal inAustralia. It once was legal in theNorthern Territory, by theRights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. In 1997, the Australian Federal Government overrode the Northern Territory legislation through the introduction of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997.[2]Unlike thestates, legislation in the Northern Territory is not guaranteed by theAustralian constitution. Before this law was passed by the Australian Government, Dr.Philip Nitschkehelped three people by them using hisDeliverance machine. Organisations such asExit International(founded by Nitschke himself), want the government to bring back euthanasia rights to Australia. Exit made TV commercials which were banned before they made it to air in September 2010.[3]Belgium[edit]TheBelgianparliament legalised euthanasia on 28 May 2002.[4][5]A survey published in 2010 reported that those who died from euthanasia (compared with other deaths) were more often younger, male, cancer patients and more often died in their homes. In almost all cases, unbearable physical suffering were reported. Euthanasia for nonterminal patients was rare.[6][7]There have been about 1,400 cases a year since the law was introduced, and a record 1,807 cases were recorded in 2013.[8][9]In December 2013, the Belgian Senate voted in favour of extending its euthanasia law to terminally ill children. Conditions imposed on children seeking euthanasia are "the patient must be conscious of their decision and understand the meaning of euthanasia", "the request must have been approved by the child's parents and medical team", "their illness must be terminal", "they must be in great pain, with no available treatment to alleviate their distress".[10]Apsychologistmust also determine the patient's maturity to make the decision. The amendment emphasizes that the patient's request be voluntary.[11]Canada[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in CanadaWhile it was illegal to "aid and abet suicide" under Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that this is an indictable offence with a potential fourteen-year sentence if the appellant is found guilty, British Columbia's Supreme Court struck down the section, arguing that it imposed unconscionably discriminatory burdens on severely disabled individuals that were not valid under Sections 7 and 15 of theCharter of Rights and Freedomson June 15, 2012. Thus, Canadian euthanasia and assisted suicide law are currently in legal limbo, although Canada's federal Parliament had until June 2013 to deal with the consequences of this decision.[12]The Canadian Medical Association has declared neutrality on the issue.On 6 February 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled inCarter v Canada (AG)that Canadian adults who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and permanently have the right to a doctor's help in dying. The court however suspended its ruling for 12 months to give the government an opportunity to write leglislation and draft new laws and policies around assisted dying.[13][14]Colombia[edit]In a 6-3 decision, Colombia's Constitutional Court ruled in 1997 that "no person can be held criminally responsible for taking the life of a terminally ill patient who has given clear authorization to do so," according to the Washington Post.[15]The court defined "terminally ill" person as those with diseases such as "cancer, AIDS, and kidney or liver failure if they are terminal and the cause of extreme suffering," the Post reported. The ruling specifically refused to authorize euthanasia for people with degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or Lou Gehrig's disease.Denmark[edit]Parliament has assigned ethics panels over the years that have advised against legalisation each time[16]however it is still not specifically outlawed[17]and a study published in 2003 showed 41% of deaths under medical supervision involved doctors taking "end-of-life" decisions to help ease their patients' suffering before death (about 1% of which were via prescription drugs).[18][19]Finland[edit]There is a grey area because of no mention in any criminal code and so it is tolerated amongst friends when done discreetly. Doctors do not formally perform it.[20][21]France[edit]In July 2013, French PresidentFranois Hollandestated his personal support for decriminalisation ofvoluntary euthanasiain France, which had been one of his presidential campaign promises ("introduction of the right to die with dignity"), despite objections from France's National Consultative Ethics Committee/Comit national consultatif d'thique, which alleged "abuses" in adjacent jurisdictions that have decriminalised and regulated either voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (Belgium,Switzerland, theNetherlandsandLuxembourg). It remains to be seen whether President Hollande will be successful in his objectives, given that theCatholic Churchin France and other religious social conservatives have announced that after forthright opposition to the introduction ofsame-sex marriage in France, their next target may be any such decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia.[22]India[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in IndiaPassive euthanasiais legal in India.[23]On 7 March 2011 theSupreme Court of Indialegalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal oflife supportto patients in apermanent vegetative state.[24][25]Forms ofActive euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds, are illegal.[26]Ireland[edit]InIreland, it is illegal for a doctor (or anyone) toactivelycontribute to someone's death. It is not, however, illegal to remove life support and other treatment (the "right to die") should a person (or their next of kin) request it. A September 2010 Irish Times poll showed that a majority, 57% of adults, believed that doctor-assisted suicide should be legal for terminally ill patients who request it.[27]Israel[edit]TheIsraeliPenal Law forbids causing the death of another and specifically forbids shortening the life of another. Active euthanasia is forbidden by both Israeli law and Jewish law. Passive euthanasia is forbidden by Jewish law but has been accepted in some cases under Israeli law.[28]In 2005, proposals were put forward to allow passive euthanasia to be administered using a switch mechanism similar toSabbath clocks.[29]In 2006, the Steinberg Commission was set up to look into whether life and death issues could be rethought in the context of Jewish law, which suggested that hospitals could set up committees to determine whether patients would be given passive euthanasia.[30]Japan[edit]TheJapanesegovernment has no official laws on the status of euthanasia and theSupreme Court of Japanhas never ruled on the matter. Rather, to date, Japan's euthanasia policy has been decided by two local court cases, one inNagoyain 1962, and another after an incident atTokai Universityin 1995. The first case involved "passive euthanasia"(shkyokuteki anrakushi?)(i.e., allowing a patient to die by turning off life support) and the latter case involved "active euthanasia"(sekkyokuteki anrakushi?)(e.g., through injection). The judgments in these cases set forth a legal framework and a set of conditions within which both passive and active euthanasia could be legal. Nevertheless, in both of these particular cases the doctors were found guilty of violating these conditions when taking the lives of their patients. Further, because the findings of these courts have yet to be upheld at the national level, these precedents are not necessarily binding. Nevertheless, at present, there is a tentative legal framework for implementing euthanasia in Japan.[31]In the case of passive euthanasia, three conditions must be met:1. the patient must be suffering from an incurable disease, and in the final stages of the disease from which he/she is unlikely to make a recovery;2. the patient must give express consent to stopping treatment, and this consent must be obtained and preserved prior to death. If the patient is not able to give clear consent, their consent may be determined from a pre-written document such as aliving willor the testimony of the family;3. the patient may be passively euthanized by stopping medical treatment, chemotherapy, dialysis, artificial respiration, blood transfusion, IV drip, etc.For active euthanasia, four conditions must be met:1. the patient must be suffering from unbearable physical pain;2. death must be inevitable and drawing near;3. the patient must give consent. (Unlike passive euthanasia, living wills and family consent will not suffice.)4. the physician must have (ineffectively) exhausted all other measures of pain relief.The problems that arose from this, in addition to the problem faced by many other families in the country, has led to the creation of "bioethics SWAT teams".[32]These teams will be made available to the families of terminally ill patients in order to help them, along with the doctors, come to a decision based on the personal facts of the case. Though in its early stages and relying on subsidies from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare there are plans to create a nonprofit organization to allow this effort to continue.[33]Luxembourg[edit]The country's parliament passed a bill legalizing euthanasia on 20 February 2008 in the first reading with 30 of 59 votes in favour. On 19 March 2009, the bill passed the second reading, making Luxembourg the third European Union country, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to decriminalise euthanasia. Terminally ill patients will have the option of euthanasia after receiving the approval of two doctors and a panel of experts.[34]Mexico[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in MexicoInMexico, active euthanasia is illegal but since 7 January 2008 the law allows the terminally ill or closest relatives, if unconscious to refuse medication or further medical treatment to extend life (also known as passive euthanasia) inMexico City,[35]in the central state ofAguascalientes(since 6 April 2009)[36]and, since 1 September 2009, in the Western state ofMichoacn.[37]A similar law extending the same provisions at the national level has been approved by thesenate[38]and an initiative decriminalizing active euthanasia has entered the same legislative chamber on 13 April 2007.[39]Netherlands[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in the NetherlandsIn the 1973 "Postma case" a physician was convicted for having facilitated the death of her mother following repeated explicit requests for euthanasia.[40]While upholding the conviction, the court's judgment set out criteria when a doctor would not be required to keep a patient alive contrary to their will. This set of criteria was formalized in the course of a number of court cases during the 1980s.In 2002, theNetherlandspassed a law legalizing euthanasia including physician-assisted suicide.[41]This law codifies the twenty-year-old convention of not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. TheMinistry of Public Health, Wellbeing and Sportsclaims that this practice "allows a person to end their life in dignity after having received every available type of palliative care."[42]The United Nations has reviewed and commented on the Netherlands euthanasia law.[43]In September 2004 theGroningen Protocolwas developed, which sets out criteria to be met for carrying outchild euthanasiawithout the physician being prosecuted.[44]New Zealand[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in New ZealandAssisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia remain illegal inNew Zealandunder Section 179 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961, which renders it a criminal offence to "aid and abet suicide." There have been two prior decriminalisation attempts- the Death With Dignity Bill 1995 and the Death With Dignity Bill 2003. Both failed, although the latter only did so by a three-vote margin within the New Zealand Parliament. In May 2012,Labour Party of New ZealandMP Maryan Street introduced a privatemember's billinto the ballot box, the End of Life Choices Bill, which was took over by MP Iain Lees-Galloway when she failed to get re-elected in the 2014 General Election. The bill was dropped in Dec 2014 under the request ofLabour Party of New ZealandleaderAndrew Littleas the issue was deemed to be distracting from bigger issues that concens the party.[45]Norway[edit]Euthanasia remains illegal, though a caregiver may receive a reduced punishment for taking the life of someone who consents to it, or for, out of compassion, taking the life of a person that is "hopelessly sick".[46]Philippines[edit]Euthanasia is illegal in the Philippines. In 1997, thePhilippine Senateconsidered passing a bill legalizing passive euthanasia. The bill met strong opposition from the country's Catholic Church. If legalized the Philippines would have been the first country to legalize euthanasia. Under current laws, doctors assisting a patient to die can be imprisoned and charged with malpractice.[47]Switzerland[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in SwitzerlandIn Switzerland, deadly drugs may be prescribed to a Swiss person or to a foreigner, where the recipient takes an active role in the drug administration.[48]More generally, article 115 of the Swiss penal code, which came into effect in 1942 (having been written in 1918), considers assisting suicide a crime if and only if the motive is selfish.Sweden[edit]Passive euthanasia was deemed legal after a landmark court ruling in 2010. This means a health care professional can legally cease life support upon request from a patient, however administering a lethal substance is illegal.[49]Turkey[edit]Euthanasia is strictly forbidden inTurkey. The aide who helped a person to suicide or other ways to kill oneself will be punished for assisting and encouraging suicide under the stipulation of article 84 of theTurkish Criminal Law. In condition of active euthanasia, article 81 of the same law sets forth that any person who carries out this act will be judged and punished for life imprisonnement just like a simple murder.United Kingdom[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in the United KingdomEuthanasia is illegal in theUnited Kingdom. Any person found to be assisting suicide is breaking the law and can be convicted of assisting suicide or attempting to do so.[50][51]However, the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidelines setting out when a prosecution is, or is not, likely to happen.[52]Between 2003 and 2006Lord Joffemade four attempts to introduce bills that would have legalised voluntary euthanasia all were rejected by the UK Parliament.[53]Currently,Dr Nigel Coxis the only British doctor to have been convicted of attempted euthanasia. He was given a 12-monthsuspended sentencein 1992.[54]In regard to theprinciple of double effect, in 1957Judge Devlinin the trial ofDr John Bodkin Adamsruled that causing death through the administration of lethal drugs to a patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is not considered murder even if death is a potential or even likely outcome.[55]United States[edit]Main article:Euthanasia in the United StatesSee also:Assisted suicide in the United StatesActive euthanasia is illegal throughout theUnited States. Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths. Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances and, under federal law and most state laws only with the informed consent of the patient or, in the event of the incompetence of the patient, with the informed consent of the legal surrogate. The Supreme Court of the United States has not dealt with "quality of life issues" or "futility issues" and appears to only condone active or passive "euthanasia" (not legally defined) when there is clear and convincing evidence that informed consent to the euthanasia, passive or active, has been obtained from the competent patient or the legal surrogate of the incompetent patient.While active euthanasia is illegal throughout the US,assisted suicideis legal inOregon,Washington,Vermont, one county inNew Mexico, and isde factolegal inMontana.[56][57]Uruguay[edit]Since 1932 thePenal Code of Uruguay, article 37, accept Compassionate Homicide, the first legal document that include euthanasia. It's important to say that this legal document didn't use this denomination. In another article, 127, the judge could waive the doctor, if this action was made by patient pledge and the doctor had an honorable reputation.[58]The main source of this Penal Code was Jimenz de Asa, a Spanish penalist, that introduce this concept in his book "Libertad de amar y derecho a morir: ensayos de un criminalista sobre eugenesia, eutanasia, endocrinologa", published in Madrid/Spain, in 1928.[59]The first proposal to understand Euthanasia as homicide was made by Ruy Santos in his MD thesis, "Da resistencia dos estados mrbidos therapeutica e da incurabilidade perante a euthansia", at Faculdade de Medicina da Bahia/Brazil, in 1928. He made a difference between Euthanasia as homicide and Euthanasia as suicide, probably the first citation about Assisted Suicide.[60]Non-governmental organizations[edit]Further information:Assisted suicide#Organizations in support of assisted suicideThere are a number of historical studies about the thorough euthanasia-related policies of professional associations. In their analysis, Brody et al. found it necessary to distinguish such topics as euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, informed consent and refusal, advance directives, pregnant patients, surrogate decision-making (including neonates), DNR orders, irreversible loss of consciousness, quality of life (as a criterion for limiting end-of-life care), withholding and withdrawing intervention, and futility.[61]Similar distinctions presumably are found outside the U.S., as with the highly contested statements of the British Medical Association.[62][63]On euthanasia (narrowly defined here as directly causing death), Brody sums up the U.S. medical NGO arena:The debate in the ethics literature on euthanasia is just as divided as the debate on physician-assisted suicide, perhaps more so. Slippery-slope arguments are often made, supported by claims about abuse of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands.... Arguments against it are based on the integrity of medicine as a profession. In response, autonomy and quality-of-life-base arguments are made in support of euthanasia, underscored by claims that when the only way to relieve a dying patient's pain or suffering is terminal sedation with loss of consciousness, death is a preferable alternative -- an argument also made in support of physician-assisted suicide.[64]Other NGOs that advocate for and against various euthanasia-related policies are found throughout the world. Among proponents, perhaps the leading NGO is the UK'sDignity in Dying, the successor to the (Voluntary) Euthanasia Society.[65]In addition to professional and religious groups, there are NGOs opposed to euthanasia[66]found in various countries.

hey were once a family, though not always a happy one.On one hand is Henedina Laurel-Velasco and her siblings, descendants of Dr. Jose Rizal, their great-grand uncle. On the other is Mary Ann Manansala-Laurel, who came from rather humbler beginnings in Malabon.Their common denominator was Mario Laurel, brother to Henedina and husband to Mary Ann for almost 22 years. Mario and Mary Ann had three children.Marios siblings and ex-wife found themselves together again on Monday, though on opposite sides in a court room in Quezon City.Mary Ann and their son Patrick stand accused of killing Mario on Sept. 2, 2007. Judge Bernelito Fernandez is hearing Mary Anns petition for bail.She was arrested at the airport last April 5 on her way back to the United States. She has since been detained at the Quezon City Jail Female Dormitory. Her son is in the U.S.Allegedly upon his mothers instructions, Patrick pulled the plug on Mario, who was then in a coma. Marios siblings sued Mary Ann and her son for murder, but the case was dismissed by the prosecutor.In 2010, the Department of Justice reversed the prosecutors ruling and ordered the filing of parricide charges against Mary Ann and her son.Clearly the removal of the life support system and the withholding of medical treatment upon instructions of respondents Mary Ann and Patrick were the proximate cause of the death of Mario, according to the DOJ resolution.Henedina Laurel-Velasco said Mary Anns arrest last April brought back hope for the family that her brother would get justice.Its still a very heavy burden on us because we just dont know how this case is going to turn out to be, she told ABS-CBN News.We just hope that our brother will still have justice in our lifetime and we will see closure to the whole case.Defense counsel Marlon Alexandre Cruz said there was no iota of truth to the allegation against Mary Ann and her son.Shes not supposed to be in jail in the first place and there is no evidence whatsoever, other than the mere say-so of the complainant, who was not even there when this incident happened, he said.On the surface, it was said to be a case of euthanasia, an issue thats especially ticklish in predominantly Catholic Philippines. Catholic teaching considers direct euthanasia as morally unacceptable."Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.In the 2010 resolution, the DOJ said: Euthanasia in the Philippines as in the instant case is still murder and any physician who assists a person in taking his/her own life is liable for the crime of assisting a person to commit suicide under the Revised Penal Code.Based on the allegations, there was more to Marios death than mercy killing.Mary Ann allegedly collected a huge sum in her husbands insurance. She had also been allegedly divorced from Mario for about three months before she rushed to his death bed in Manila.On Monday, the prosecution presented a medico-legal expert to help prove that based on hospital records, Mario should not have been removed from life support.Also taking the witness stand was California-based lawyer Rodel Rodis, who had take Mary Anns deposition in a separate defamation case against the Laurel siblings in the U.S.In the deposition, she made very damaging admissions about her marriage to Joseph Timbol before she married Mario Laurel, and admissions about the sequence of events that showed that she already divorced Mario in the U.S., already married Timbol, when she then went to the Philippines when Mario was sick and started asserting herself as the spouse, he said.She clearly had a motive because she was going to collect $1.75 million and that proved damaging.Mary Anns lawyer Cruz said the case clearly had something to do with what Mario had left behind.I can assure you that these are utterly trumped-up charges against her and against the son, he said.Its ultimately about the estate. Were it not for the dispute about the estate, I dont think this case would have been filed.Whatever the truth is, its still a long way to go in this bitter family saga.INQUIRERI flew to Manila over the July 4thweekend to testify as a witness in a Quezon City courtroom on July 6 to authenticate the deposition I did of Mary Ann Laurel in my San Francisco law office close to seven years ago.She has been charged with parricide for the murder of her former husband, Mario Laurel, after allegedly directing her son, Patrick Laurel, to turn off Marios life support system when he was in a coma at the Capitol Medical Center on September 2, 2007, causing his immediate death.Partof the evidence againsther were the admissions she made in that civil deposition.

Read more:http://globalnation.inquirer.net/126052/was-it-mercy-killing#ixzz3g30nVGBWFollow us:@inquirerdotnet on Twitter|inquirerdotnet on Facebookhe deposition I conducted of Mary Ann Laurel on August 22, 2008 was in connection with the civil lawsuit she filed in Santa Clara County on March 24, 2008 alleging that her ex-in laws the brother and three sisters of Mario Laurel had defamed her by accusing her of murdering their brother. The Laurel siblings retained me to defend them in that civil action.Damaging admissionsADVERTISEMENTIn the course of my whole day deposition of Mary Ann Laurel, she admitted under penalty of perjury, that: She had twice married Joseph Timbol. The first time in 1981, three years after she started working as a flight attendant for Kuwaiti Airways, and the second time on June 7, 1984. Neither of her marriages to Timbol was ever annulled before she married Mario Laurel. She married Mario Laurel in Reno, Nevada on December 14, 1985. At the time, Mario was a U.S. postal worker who had been previously married and divorced from Rosalyn Velasquez. Mario, a U.S. citizen, then petitioned Mary Ann to be a U.S. immigrant. She is now an Americancitizen. She filed her petition for divorce from Mario Laurel in Santa Clara County Superior Court on July 28, 2006 after they had been separated for more than a year. Mario was in the Philippines when he was served with the divorce papers, which he did not contest. The final judgment of dissolution was granted on June 14, 2007. A week after her divorce from Mario, Mary Ann married Joseph Timbol for the third time in Reno, Nevada on June 22, 2007.After quitting his job as a postman, Mario moved back to the Philippines in 2005. On August 24, 2007, Mario was brought to San Juan De Dios Hospital in Pasay City because of high fever and difficulty breathing. Marios sisters, Henedina Laurel-Velasco and Isabelita Laurel-Rand, transferred him to Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City where he then suffered cardiac arrest on August 30, 2007 and went into a coma after he was revived.On August 31, 2007, Mary Ann and her daughter, Bianca, arrived in Manila to join her son, Patrick, who was already in the Philippines. They then proceeded to the hospital where Mario was confined and, with a lawyer, Mary Annasserted toMarios two sisters that she had full charge and authority over Mario and prohibited them from entering the hospital room of their brother. The two sisters reluctantly complied even though they protested thatMary Annwas already divorced from Mario and that she was already married to Timbol.Pulling the plugAccording tothe affidavit ofIsabelita Laurel-Rand, shereturned to the hospital room of Mario on September 2, 2007 despite Mary Anns ban. While in the hospital room, she witnessed a nurse hand a piece of paper to Mary Ann, which she then handed over to Patrick who read the paper and who then asked her, What shall I write as reason? Mary Ann replied, To prevent prolonging the agony,which Patrick then dutifully wrote on the paper.

Photo of a young Mario Laurel provided by Henedina Laurel-Velasco.After Patrick signed the Waiver of Diagnostic Procedures and/or Medical Treatment hospital form, the nurse asked Isabelita and Bianca to sign as witnesses, which they did. According to Isabelitas affidavit, she saw the nurse return to her nurses station and then saw Patrick walk to the life support system attached to Mario. At the machine, Patrick hesitated and queried But Mom, isnt this murder? Bianca also voiced out, Isnt it that there are some people, after 10 years come out of their coma?In her affidavit, Isabelita recalled what happened next: Mary Ann sternly retorted, Just do it to Patrick and ignored Biancas remark. Thereupon, Patrick switched off the machine, its lights went off, and then the monitor went flat Mario was gone.Isabelita said that she then rushed out of the ICU room while crying, called my sisters to inform them that Marios life support system had been switched off and that our dear brother had passed away.Collecting insurance proceedsAfter Marios death, Mary Ann obtained certified copies of his death certificate, which she furnished to his life insurance carriers. In my deposition of Mary Ann on August 22, 2008, I asked her how many insurance policies Mario had with her as the sole beneficiary. She first declined to answer, but her lawyer, William P. Daley, answered that there were two. When I asked her how much they were for, she replied, You know, I didnt know. Upon further prodding, she said, It was half a million. That was for the first policy. And for the second? The other one was 1.2Mary Ann Laurel had collected $1.7 million dollars from Marios two insurance policies. In her deposition, I asked Mary Ann if she had disclosed to the insurance companies that she had already divorced Mario. She answered, Well, they never ask me.Mary Anns admissions in her 2008 deposition, which was contained in a 365-page binder, formed the basis for my successful motion to dismiss the defamation causes of action she had filed against my clients. More significantly, they provided the factual information that resulted in the subsequent filing of criminal charges.On May 20, 2010, Assistant City Prosecutor Romana Del Rosario filed a criminal Information against Patrick Laurel and Mary Ann M. Timbol charging that on or about the 2nd day of Sept, 2007, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused PatrickLaurel, being the son of the deceased Mario Banaad Laurel, with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously remove the life support system of the said Mario Banaad Laurel, upon instructions of the accused Mary Ann M. Timbol, the legitimate spouse of the deceased, and by withholding of medical treatment by respondent Patrick Laurel, which resulted to the death of the victim.The investigation of the Department of Justice as contained in its Resolution determined thata thorough examination of the record failed to mention any particular physician who rendered a categorical declaration from the scientific point of view that Mario was clinically dead nor a recovery from the coma is nil. Taking the foregoing into account, it is apparent that although in a coma at the time, Mario was alive, scientifically and biologically. He expired due to cardiac arrest and multiple organ failure when the mechanical ventilator attached to him was turned off.Motive is irrelevantThe Resolution explained: In this legal jurisdiction, it is not for any person to decide when a man or a woman is ripe for the taking or killing while he or she is in a coma. Euthanasia in the Philippines as in the instant case is still murder A good motive is not incompatible with an unlawful intent. One may be convicted of a crime whether his motive appears to be good or bad or even though no motive is proven. A good motive does not prevent an act from being a crime.Even though the murder charge was filed in 2010, Mary Ann was only arrested on April 5, 2015 when she was about to board a return flight to San Francisco. She had apparently been in the United States since 2007 and had not returned to Manila until March of 2015.Mary Ann Laurel has been incarcerated in a Quezon City jail since thenand held without bail, awaiting trial. Her lawyer, Marlon Alexander Cruz, told ABS-CBN News reporter Christian Esguerra that there is no iota of truth to any of the allegations against his client.

Cover page of deposition of Mary Ann Laurel taken on August 22, 2008.But it is undisputed that it was Patrick Laurel who turned off the life support ventilator system that kept Mario alive and that he did so at the direction of his mother.The problem for Cruz and his client is that mercy killing or euthanasia is not legal in the Philippines. In the U.S., where it is legal, there are strict hospital protocols that have to be followed before the hospital can pull the plug on a patient.Hospital protocolsJudge Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News legal expert, explained that the law in New York says if two physicians decide the patient is in a hopelessly vegetative state, and no natural or unnatural means are likely to return the patient to a cognitive state, and the patients representative agrees, then the medical center may terminate life support.Before I testified in the Quezon City courtroom on July 6, a medico-legal expert, Dr. Rodel V. Capule, informed the court that his review of the hospital records of Mario Laurel at the Capitol Medical Center disclosed that Marios vital signs were still in good order and that he was neither brain dead nor in a vegetative state when his life support system was turned off.So even if Mario Laurel had been in a coma and confined in a New York hospital, it would still have been a crime for Patrick Laurel to pull the plug.This would be true even if it were simply done to prevent prolonging his agony and not for the purpose of collecting $1.7 million in insurance proceeds. The mercy killing of Mario Laurel on September 2, 2007 was still a killing and it was still a crime.If Mary Ann Laurel is somehow acquitted of the parricide charge, a precedent may be set effectively legalizing euthanasia in the Philippines.(Send comments to Rodel50@gmail.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).

Read more:http://globalnation.inquirer.net/126052/was-it-mercy-killing#ixzz3g31B0X9SFollow us:@inquirerdotnet on Twitter|inquirerdotnet on Facebook