28 March 2010
Media Release
Who will save Margaret Page ?
Margaret Page has resolved to kill herself. She is starving herself to death, has not taken food for twelve days and has
taken only a small amount of water. She is enduring a long and painful death. She is 60 years of age, suffered a
cerebral haemorrhage 20 years ago and has been living for four years in the St John of God Care in Wellington. This
tragic case raises many important questions for the community.
Margaret’s life is important she is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation. The taking of one’s life
is contrary to the moral law. Our life is a gift from God. We are but stewards, not owners, of the life God has
entrusted to us. The decision to kill oneself, is not a rational decision. She has been assessed by psychiatrists as
being lucid, but was she also assessed as being severely depressed and if so, why is she not being treated for this
condition?
The management of St John of God Care claim that they have complied with their legal obligations. Otago University’s
Professor John Dawson, an expert in mental health law said that the Bill of Rights Act recognised a person’s right to
refuse treatment. “To force food on someone is actually an assault on them.” The Chief Executive Officer, Ralph La Salle
of St John of God Care, stated, “We cannot force Mrs Page to eat. Under the Bill of Rights Act she has the right and is
asserting her right to refuse treatment, which includes the provision of food and water.” These statements are
challenged. It is morally and legally acceptable to refuse medical treatment that is burdensome or futile. Food and
hydration are not medical treatment but the necessities of life. It is a great injustice and a violation of human rights
to withhold food and hydration from any person on the grounds that it is medical treatment.
Dr Tricia Briscoe, chairman of the ethics committee of the New Zealand Medical Association stated that Mrs Page’s
actions were not the responsibility of doctors. A doctor was responsible for alleviating a patient’s suffering, not to
ward off death. Even though doctors could not assist in suicide, they could give painkillers that hasten death. Right to
Life contends that doctors have a responsibility of care, especially for the weak and vulnerable. The first principle of
medical practice is to do no harm. It is contended that the first duty of a doctor is to protect the life of his
patient. Mrs Page’s distraught husband says his wife’s life will now end in a final irony – the professionals who are
caring for her are now involved in what amounts to assisted suicide.
Auckland criminal lawyer, Shane Tait, has stated that doctors could intervene to save Mrs Page’s life. If they did so, a
conviction for assault was unlikely to be successful. The Crimes Act, Section 41, states; everyone is justified in using
reasonable force to prevent suicide. Right to Life asks when will someone in authority intervene to save the life of
Margaret Page?
ends