Should family members of a terminally ill patient who is going through a lot of pain have a right to end the patient’s life? Should it only be legal if the terminally ill patient authorises it in writing?

These were the questions that were at the centre of the ongoing debate about the proposed amendment of the Penal Code, specifically under Article 123.

This is part of the ongoing analysis by members of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Political Affairs and Gender in the presence of State Minister for Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Evode Uwizeyimana, and other stakeholders.

Article 123 of the proposed Penal Code says that euthanasia, as mercy killing is referred to in the law, is a crime punishable by imprisonment.

"Any person who kills a patient with intention to relieve the patient from an intractable suffering caused by an incurable disease upon request by the patient commits an offence of euthanasia. When convicted by a court, they are liable to a term of imprisonment of not less than three years but not exceeding five years,” it reads.

Euthanasia means ‘intentionally ending a life to relieve pain or suffering’.

According to the UK’s National Health Services website, there are three types of euthanasia.

The first one is voluntary euthanasia, where a person makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do so; non-voluntary euthanasia, where a person is unable to give their consent to treatment (for example, because they are in a coma) and another person takes the decision on their behalf.

Split opinions

The committee deputy chair, Yvonne Uwayisenga, wondered why a terminally ill person who is in pain and in some cases has little time left to live should not be assisted and relieved of their suffering instead.

"There are even cases where the patient is not in condition to decline or consent. However, the family may decide that the pain of their loved one is unbearable and they decide that they should let them go,” she wondered.

Minister Uwizeyimana said that whether consented or not, the Government’s position was that no one should be assisted to die.

"Euthanasia in our case is assisting a patient to die. However, when families start coming in with requests, it starts changing the whole meaning of what we are discussing here today.

"The general but clear government position is that we cannot support anyone to assist the other to end their life. It is unacceptable. Even our culture does not condone it,” he said.

MP Elizabeth Mukamana tasked Minister Uwizeyimana to explain how, for instance, it would be determined in courts of law that a patient had made the decision to end their life.

"How will such a case be tried since the main witness is already gone? How will they determine that the choice was made by the patient, not by the caretaker? We need to be careful,” she warned.

In response, Uwizeyimana said that the law was clear on what each institution’s task was.

"We went with a general meaning of euthanasia which means assisting someone to die based on the patient’s request. What you are asking is the prosecutor’s task. Though I agree that we should balance the two to avoid laws that are not practical, our task is to put in place laws, the prosecution office is the one expected to find the evidence if a case is brought to their attention,” he said.  

The minister said the MPs’ duty was to put practical laws in place and leave the rest to the concerned authorities.

editorial@newtimes.co.rw