backwards step for australia

[Asguard]

Manslaughter case puts euthanasia under spotlight

ABC News
By Emily Bourke

Posted 5 hours 49 minutes ago
Updated 4 hours 29 minutes ago


When a jury yesterday found Shirley Justins guilty of the manslaughter of her elderly partner, there were cheers from one group and tears from another.

The case, which centred on the assisted suicide of 71-year-old Graeme Wylie, has highlighted the arguments of right to life and pro-euthanasia groups.

Mr Wylie was suffering advanced Alzheimer's disease when Ms Justins helped him commit suicide by consuming the drug Nembutal in 2006.

Her friend Caren Jenning was found guilty of being an accessory to manslaughter after she imported the drug from Mexico.

The Sydney jury found Mr Wylie was not mentally capable of making that decision to end his life. The women will be sentenced in October.

Dr Rodney Syme is the vice-president of Dying with Dignity Victoria. He says the case demonstrates flaws in the legal system.

"The laws that we have in this country, they're opaque. Generally, where you have any unregulated activity in this area, like there used to be with abortion back in the 60s, you have bad practice and bad outcomes," he said.

"It's only by having good law, which brings practice out into the open and regulates it, that we will make any progress."

Dr Syme says the New South Wales case will have little bearing on the progress of the euthanasia campaign.

He points to the Victorian Parliament which is considering legislation which would allow doctors to assist the terminally ill to die - but with strict conditions on consent, financial interest and expert medical opinion.

But CEO of Right to Life New South Wales Chiang Lim expects the Victorian legislation to fail.

"While there may be a number of people who are very sympathetic to the euthanasia cause, there is no safeguard possible or legislatively possible to prevent foul play, or extra opportunities that [can] be exploited," he said.

Professor Megan Jane Johnstone is an ethicist at RMIT University. She predicts Australian states will legalise euthanasia.

"I think you've got a new generation of people coming through that have a very different view of all sorts of ethical issues, have a very new view about their so-called 'right to decide', rightly or wrongly, and I do think there will come a time when it will happen," she said.

But she is warning of unintended consequences.

"If you're going to say, 'OK, euthanasia is okay for people who have very painful end-stage illnesses and wanting an exit strategy', then say 'well it's OK then to say that people who have severe depression would be candidates for euthanasia', we could imagine a world where, depleted of resources due to climate, them saying they want an exit strategy," she said.

"Some might say that's extreme. I would suggest it isn't, that once you start, then that policy can then be expanded to be inclusive of all sorts of life and
death scenarios that hadn't been anticipated."


Viewed 20/06/08 at 15:07

This case is sad for alot of reasons. The main one is that until now the DPP wouldnt take cases of euthanasia because the courts had shown that they were unwilling to convict. That is unless there are other issues that come up in the investigation other than the act itself. Now doctors who help there pts and families who live with terminal loved ones will have to fear the courts

As for the surposed ethists proffessor at the end of this artical she is a real joke. I studied ethics (including ethanaisa, the now struck down laws from the NT and the laws from the nethlands) and our lecture taught us the slipery slope argumant is pure falasy. It has NEVER been shown to exist in real life where an area like this is legislated. There is apsolutly no risk of state sponsored sucides for depression

 

[codanblad]

yeah i think euthanasia's a great idea but too difficult to legislate and regulate maybe. i think its one of those things you've just gotta take into your own hands and hope for the best. hope for the right judge and jury maybe.

 

[Asguard]

actually your wrong there. After having read the act that was briefly present in the NT i think it would work quite well and did for the 14 days it was alowed untill the federal parliment over rulled the teriorty goverment

i will give you a link to that act latter if your interested but a rough guide simply from memory

You had to be terminal (certifided from your regular doctor), you then had to be refered to 2 other doctors one of who HAD to be shrink and the other i belive had to be a palitive care expert. They had to certify that this was your wish and yours alone, that you were of sound mind and body and that you wernt depressed.

Then and only then could you go back to your own doctor and ask for it to be done, you had to sign some paperwork and then pick a time and place.

 

[codanblad]

the only flaws would be hiring corrupt doctors to get your inheritance sooner, and people wanting to die who can't communicate effectively.

 

[Bells]

You had to be terminal (certifided from your regular doctor), you then had to be refered to 2 other doctors one of who HAD to be shrink and the other i belive had to be a palitive care expert. They had to certify that this was your wish and yours alone, that you were of sound mind and body and that you wernt depressed.

Then and only then could you go back to your own doctor and ask for it to be done, you had to sign some paperwork and then pick a time and place.

Do you think a person with advanced Alzheimer's disease is capable of making that kind of decision? Do you think the deceased in this particular case, a man who had advanced Alzheimer's, was in right mind to make the decision to end his own life and to ask his partner's friend to get the drugs from Mexico?

There were other facts in this case which would have leaned towards a murder charge.

Firstly, she stood to gain part of his $2 million dollar fortune from his death.

Secondly, when he changed his will to have her as a beneficiary, she failed to inform the solicitors that he had advanced Alzheimer's.

Fifty-nine-year-old Shirley Justins denied she knew her partner Graeme Wiley's estate was worth more than $2 million when the 71-year-old died, but she told the court she knew she would inherit the bulk of it.

Mr Wiley suffered from Alzheimer's disease and died from an overdose of euthanasia drug Nembutal in Sydney in March 2006.

Justins has pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting his suicide but the prosecution is pursuing the murder charge.

Under cross-examination, Justins admitted she had a financial conflict of interest in his death and that it relieved her from her obligation to care for him.

She also conceded she failed to tell a solicitor her partner had Alzheimer's disease when he changed his will the same month he died.

She admitted Mr Wiley could not remember he had two daughters during a meeting in December 2005 and that he would hardly have had the capacity to make a valid will four months later.

When asked by Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC if she had deliberately misled the solicitor about Mr Wiley's condition, Justins replied, 'yes'.

But she insisted she never thought about his death in monetary terms.

Justins also gave evidence that she paid another woman charged over the murder, 75-year-old Caren Jenning, more than $2,000 to get the drug from Mexico for Mr Wiley.
(Source)

I can understand why the jury found her guilty.

When asked today why she did not get the results of cognitive tests Mr Wylie had in hospital before trying to get him an assisted suicide through mercy killing group Dignitas, Justins replied, "I'm not medically minded".

Sydney's Supreme Court was also told Dignitas rejected Mr Wylie's application because he lacked the cognitive ability to make the decision.

Justins denied that she manipulated him and that he was under her influence.

The court yesterday heard Mr Wylie's will was changed a week before his death to leave most of his estate to Justins.

She conceded she failed to tell a solicitor her partner had Alzheimer's disease when he changed his will.

Justins admitted Mr Wylie could not remember he had two daughters during a meeting in December 2005 and that he would hardly have had the capacity to make a valid will four months later.

When asked by Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC if she had deliberately misled the solicitor about Mr Wylie's condition, Justins replied, "yes".

She admitted she had a financial conflict of interest in Mr Wylie's death and that it relieved her from her obligation to care for him.

She denied she knew Mr Wylie's estate was worth more than $2 million when he died, but she told the court she knew she would inherit the bulk of it.

Justins insisted she never thought about his death in monetary terms.
(Source)

In my opinion, that woman is a murderer. She saw an opportunity to make a hell of a lot of money and she took it. She misled his lawyer into getting his will changed, she stood to gain a lot of money from his death (once his will was changed), she paid someone (Jenning) $2,000 to have the drugs brought in from Mexico who has subsequently been found guilty of being an accessory to manslaughter.

She shouldn't have gotten manslaughter, she should have been charged with murder.

Don't get me wrong. If I were diagnosed with a terminal illness and I knew the end stages would have me either in agonising pain or incapable of moving or doing anything, I would want to kill myself. But that is my choice and mine alone. In this particular case, Graeme Wylie was in no position to be able to make such a decision. And it was not up to his partner to lie to a solicitor to have his will changed so that the bulk was left to her, nor was it up to her to then have her friend fly to Mexico to get the drugs and then administer them to him in a supposed assisted suicide. I can assure you, if I was his child, I'd be cheering too if the woman who deceived him and then killed him was found guilty.

 

[Asguard]

ok bells, ignoring the paticulars of THIS case do you think that mercy killings should be procicuted?

say a doctor kills his terminally ill pt with no finantial gain (doctor nitchkie for an example) do you think he/she should be found guilty for that?

I hate to say this bells but there is ALWAYS going to be a finantial incentive for a spouse to kill there partner. Hell i could make a FORTUNE if PB died so if she had terminal cancer that would automatically make me a murder rather than a mercy killer?

possably, but i can tell you i would still take the jail time if she asked me because i have seen to many people die in agony with no point to watch my partner die that way (if it came to that). I did a placement with RDNS and as part of that one of the rotations was with palitive care. I saw a pt with his face rotting away from a brain tumor, his house was a mess because he could no longer clean it himself. I also saw a 5 year old with terminal bone cancer who had to be moved by a crain because it had spread to his limph nodes and given him eliphantitis. There is no way in HELL i would let someone i cared about go through that if i could do anything about it

Legally (even under the NT laws) no she couldnt make that decision but i know what i would want under those cirumstances. I watched my aunt slowly die from Alzheimer's and it is no better death than cancer is. I also watched her sister die because of a heart atack caused by her sisters Alzheimer's and the fact that she tried to hide it and never asked for help.

Your right however that the fact she hid that he had Alzheimer's from his solicitor is strange to say the least but after watching the fight that both my aunts dying in testate caused im not really surprised. Now if she had taken insurance out on him that would be a different story, THAT would be evidence of a finantial motive.

Let me ask you a question, there was a fiction TV show where a parent of a kid with tasacs killed the child. That child was going to be dead before it turned 5 and would have been in IMENCE pain, losing the ability to swollow, sit up, going blind and deef. If that was your child how would you act? Now there is no chance of a 5month old baby making that decision for itself, you have to make the choice.

Let it suffer, or kill it quickly with something like morphine, seditives or what not

 

[codanblad]

bells are you taking into account that perhaps the partner knew the terminally ill person well enough to know that they would prefer a quick death? i've never spoken to my gf about it directly, i've never said 'if i get really sick kill me', but i thinks she'd know i'd rather die than go through all the suffering. you're vilifying that woman a lot, considering all she did was kill a 70 year old man with alzheimers so bad he didn't even know his own daughters. even if she did it for the money, i think the dude was probably ready to go. when my grandpa got cancer he tried to commit suicide, cos he knew how awful a way to die it is, and how awful it is for your family to endure. he was a hard man, he grew up in an orphanage and went to war at 16, so for him to consider it horrific enough that suicide was a better option carries a lot of weight in my opinion.

provided there's strict regulations, i think the good euthanasia would do might outweigh the risks.

 

[Bells]

bells are you taking into account that perhaps the partner knew the terminally ill person well enough to know that they would prefer a quick death? i've never spoken to my gf about it directly, i've never said 'if i get really sick kill me', but i thinks she'd know i'd rather die than go through all the suffering. you're vilifying that woman a lot, considering all she did was kill a 70 year old man with alzheimers so bad he didn't even know his own daughters. even if she did it for the money, i think the dude was probably ready to go. when my grandpa got cancer he tried to commit suicide, cos he knew how awful a way to die it is, and how awful it is for your family to endure. he was a hard man, he grew up in an orphanage and went to war at 16, so for him to consider it horrific enough that suicide was a better option carries a lot of weight in my opinion.

provided there's strict regulations, i think the good euthanasia would do might outweigh the risks.

Vilifying her? She did not just kill a sick old man. She purposefully lied so that his children would be disinherited, leaving her with the bulk of his estate. Even the right to die with dignity group stated he could not join their organisation because his alzheimer's was so advanced and he was unable to make such a decision. He had left no other proviso that he wanted to commit suicide once his disease had advanced to a certain point. His children did not know of it. No one in his family knew of his original intent to end his life when his alzheimers became advanced. All we have is the word of his girlfriend who lied to his solicitors to have his will changed so that she became the main beneficiary. She also lied to his solicitor about his being mentally incapable of joining Dignitas in that he was not of sound mind to make the decision to end his life. We are talking about a man who forgot he had children because his disease had advanced so far. She then paid a friend $2000 to fly to Mexico to purchase the medication used to kill him.

While you may consider it a deliverance for his family because he was old and sick, we have no idea what he wanted, because he was too sick to understand the notion of death. It was not her decision to make. His family were not aware of what was happening. She made the decision for him and for them.

You can say that she may have known or he may have spoken of it to her before his disease became so advanced. If that is the case, why didn't he change his will back then? Why did she lie to have it changed so that she would benefit from the bulk of his estate? Why did she wait so long to have it done?

I hate to say this bells but there is ALWAYS going to be a finantial incentive for a spouse to kill there partner. Hell i could make a FORTUNE if PB died so if she had terminal cancer that would automatically make me a murder rather than a mercy killer?

possably, but i can tell you i would still take the jail time if she asked me because i have seen to many people die in agony with no point to watch my partner die that way (if it came to that). I did a placement with RDNS and as part of that one of the rotations was with palitive care. I saw a pt with his face rotting away from a brain tumor, his house was a mess because he could no longer clean it himself. I also saw a 5 year old with terminal bone cancer who had to be moved by a crain because it had spread to his limph nodes and given him eliphantitis. There is no way in HELL i would let someone i cared about go through that if i could do anything about it

Legally (even under the NT laws) no she couldnt make that decision but i know what i would want under those cirumstances. I watched my aunt slowly die from Alzheimer's and it is no better death than cancer is. I also watched her sister die because of a heart atack caused by her sisters Alzheimer's and the fact that she tried to hide it and never asked for help.

Your right however that the fact she hid that he had Alzheimer's from his solicitor is strange to say the least but after watching the fight that both my aunts dying in testate caused im not really surprised. Now if she had taken insurance out on him that would be a different story, THAT would be evidence of a finantial motive.

Let me ask you a question, there was a fiction TV show where a parent of a kid with tasacs killed the child. That child was going to be dead before it turned 5 and would have been in IMENCE pain, losing the ability to swollow, sit up, going blind and deef. If that was your child how would you act? Now there is no chance of a 5month old baby making that decision for itself, you have to make the choice.

Let it suffer, or kill it quickly with something like morphine, seditives or what not

You aren't getting exactly what she did. She lied to his solicitor, made him pass off as someone mentally able to realise his actions, so that he disinherited his own children, leaving her as the main beneficiary of his will. She then paid someone to fly to Mexico to buy the drugs and then administered those drugs to him without his children's consent and seeing that he was in no position to legally be able to give consent, without his either. His children did not know about it. No one else knew aside from her and the friend she paid to go to get the drugs. He would not have been able to understand what was happening. He was not even in a position to understand that he was disinheriting his children and leaving everything to her.

It is akin to a carer being hired to care for a someone suffering from alzheimer's, having said carer than lie to have the patient's will changed, leaving everything to the carer and then feeding the patient drugs so that they died. That is exactly what this woman has done. Think of it in that light and you'll see why she was found guilty. She preyed on a sick and vulnerable old man, lied to disinherit his children, killed him under the guise that it was euthanasia and then inherited his estate to the detriment of his children and family.

 

[madanthonywayne]

She preyed on a sick and vulnerable old man, lied to disinherit his children, killed him under the guise that it was euthanasia and then inherited his estate to the detriment of his children and family.

This may be a textbook case of the idea that bad cases make bad law.

 

[Bells]

This may be a textbook case of the idea that bad cases make bad law.

That's the thing. I am pro-euthanasia. I even have it in my will that if I am ever on a life support machine with no chance of recovery, I want it turned off. I have expressed my wishes to my husband and my family. But I also have it in writing just in case they can't go through with it. If I am ever diagnosed with something like alzheimer's, the proviso in my will would still stand. I would make it known to everyone around me that I wanted to die before I became incapacitated by the disease.

Even the dying with dignity group thought he was mentally incapable of making such a decision. So she lied about it so that his will was changed, leaving most of his estate to her.

What this woman has done was done for her benefit. Not his or his family's. He may very well have expressed the desire to die before it finally rendered him into a vegetable. In that case, she should have ensured he was of sound mind and able to understand his actions when he changed his will. Not wait a few months before his deaths, lie to his solicitor and have him disinherit his children, leaving the bulk of everything to her. That action alone reeks of her true intentions in this case. She basically waited until he was unable to decide for himself before she acted in regards to his will and his death.

She is hiding under the notion of euthanasia to benefit from his estate.

 

[Asguard]

bells your right, the fact she tried to disiherint his children is suspisious at the least. Still would be interested to hear your answer to the very bottom of my post

Bells end of life is never cut and dry, any fantasy i had that it is went out the window about 2 months ago when my grandfather died. My grandfather died of mulitple organ failure (my guess, not defininitive cause of death, offically he died of old age). He died with a DNR on him, he was of sound mind and judgement (at least he was at the start, not sure how he was a week before his death) and i agreed with the desision to put a DNR on because he had so many heart atacks in such a short time and my family had told me of the pain he was in (im interstate from the rest of them unfortunatly). Now i was on the phone to my mother (mum was acting as the get everything done person as dad was with his dying father with nan) and i happened to ask her had both of them agreed with the DNR.

Mum said that though they both wanted it nither had talked to eachother about it, it was nan's and the doctors decision and she hadnt told my grandfather because she didnt want him to think she didnt want him around. Now that is not how my parents or my siblings or myself would handle the situation but its how they did. End of life is never easy and with all due respect to you, my opinion as a student of the health system is that the legal system cant handle end of life well. Hell half of palitive care breaches the law and the justice system simply looks the other way.

 

[Bells]

Let me ask you a question, there was a fiction TV show where a parent of a kid with tasacs killed the child. That child was going to be dead before it turned 5 and would have been in IMENCE pain, losing the ability to swollow, sit up, going blind and deef. If that was your child how would you act? Now there is no chance of a 5month old baby making that decision for itself, you have to make the choice.

Let it suffer, or kill it quickly with something like morphine, seditives or what not

If it were my child? I wouldn't kill it while it was healthy. When it got to the point where it had to be placed on life-support, I would refuse, ensure it was suffering no pain and allow it to die naturally. In short, I would make his life as comfortable as possible, without pain, but I would not try to prolong its life with life saving measures and life support. I would not lie and take out a huge insurance policy on it and then benefit from its death.

 

[codanblad]

bells, the article doesn't say the woman disinherited the daughters, just that she made herself the main benefactor. if he has a gf there's a chance his family is estranged. just because he didn't have the foresight to change his will doesn't mean he didn't want to. there's more important things on your mind when you realise you're dying in such a fashion, perhaps.

i agree its completely plausible this woman is just some parasite, but i felt you were drawing too many conclusions.

why do you wish for your child to die naturally? you say you'd ensure they felt no pain, but if that was not possible, what would you do?

i'm not trying to hound you or annoy you, am just interested in your differing opinions.

 

[Bells]

bells, the article doesn't say the woman disinherited the daughters, just that she made herself the main benefactor. if he has a gf there's a chance his family is estranged. just because he didn't have the foresight to change his will doesn't mean he didn't want to. there's more important things on your mind when you realise you're dying in such a fashion, perhaps.

i agree its completely plausible this woman is just some parasite, but i felt you were drawing too many conclusions.

why do you wish for your child to die naturally? you say you'd ensure they felt no pain, but if that was not possible, what would you do?

i'm not trying to hound you or annoy you, am just interested in your differing opinions.

If pain relief was not an option, I would seek to have them induced into a coma so that they were at least unaware of their pain. But to inject them and end either of their lives? I honestly don't think I could do it personally. Just the thought of it makes me want to throw up. I don't even want to have to think about it.

As for this particular case. She was going to be the main beneficiary... She was going to inherit the bulk of his estate, which the media reported would have been in excess of $2 million. And yes, from what I understood in the media reports, his children were the ones who would have originally benefited from his estate. So a few months before his death, she had his will changed. That is basically the crux of this case. It was her actions prior to his death that have raised many eyebrows, and rightly so. The level of deceit she employed to ensure his will was changed and his solicitors remain unaware of his mental status was quite extraordinary.

 

[Asguard]

bells of course she was going to be the main benificory, so was my grandmother over my grandfathers estate. However i could NEVER belive that she was motivated by greed rather than love.

As for making that choice for your child i hope that you never have to make that decision, however i know if it was me i would give them the shot. Wether it was my partner or especially my child. It would be pure cowardious to alow my fear of jail alow me to be complicit in what is tandamount to torcher

 

[Bells]

bells of course she was going to be the main benificory, so was my grandmother over my grandfathers estate. However i could NEVER belive that she was motivated by greed rather than love.

She would not have been the main beneficiary if she had not lied about the advanced stage of his disease and had him change his will. So unless your grandmother lied about your grandfather's mental status so that his will could be changed leaving it all to her, then pay someone money to travel overseas to import the drugs and then administer it.. it's not really the same thing.

As for making that choice for your child i hope that you never have to make that decision, however i know if it was me i would give them the shot. Wether it was my partner or especially my child. It would be pure cowardious to alow my fear of jail alow me to be complicit in what is tandamount to torcher

What makes you assume it is a fear of jail that would prevent me from doing it? No, prison would not even enter into the equation. I simply don't think I could ever give either of my children a shot to kill them because they are terminally ill and I didn't want them to suffer. There are alternatives in pain relief. And frankly, the thought of my ending my child life literally makes my stomach turn. You say you know what you would do if it were you. But you don't have children and I don't think you quite understand the depth of horror of what you are suggesting in this scenario. When you do have children, then you can get back to me on this issue. I'm telling you now though, I would end my own life before I had to take my child's life, regardless of the circumstances. There are alternatives. Induced coma and a DNR for example. But for me to give them a shot to end my child's life? As I said, I'd kill myself first.

 

[Asguard]

bells have you ever seen how long it takes someone to die on a DNR?
It can be years

As for morphine and madaz (what they use to induce a coma) they are usless. I suggest you watch the documentry Dr Philip Nitchki made on palitive care. No a barbituate is a much kinder alternitive. However i respect your position and i hope nither of us are in the situation where we have to find how far we would go.

 

[Bells]

bells have you ever seen how long it takes someone to die on a DNR?
It can be years

As for morphine and madaz (what they use to induce a coma) they are usless. I suggest you watch the documentry Dr Philip Nitchki made on palitive care. No a barbituate is a much kinder alternitive. However i respect your position and i hope nither of us are in the situation where we have to find how far we would go.

You mean this Dr Nitschke?

Dr Nitschke has told the Supreme Court he was asked by Swiss mercy killing organisation Dignitas to check Mr Wiley's capacity to make the decision to take his own life.

He assessed Mr Wiley's mental capacity and said that while the man could not remember his children, he was aware of his condition and wanted to go to Switzerland for an assisted suicide.

Dr Nitschke was accused of being "hell bent" on assisting the suicide.

Under cross-examination by Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC, the doctor said he had not reviewed independent testing from Concord Hospital about Mr Wiley's condition.

But he denied he failed to carry out a proper assessment.

Dr Nitschke told the court that he thought Mr Wiley should have the opportunity to travel to Switzerland for the service that was being offered.
(Source)

I'm sorry, but that man lost the rest of his credibility (the issue with Lisette Nigot kind of showed his true nature in the whole euthanasia debate) when he testified that a man who couldn't remember his own children due to the advanced stage of his disease was of sound mind to decide to end his own life.

Euthanasia advocates would do well to distance themselves from Dr Nitschke as soon as possible. The man only cares for the cause and for self publicity and self promotion.

 

[Asguard]

of course he does, and i could well say that by your own admission that the procicuter was only interested in his own carreer rather than the facts of ANY case. That was YOUR complaint with the system after all.

I still suggest you watch the documentry he made

edit to add: oh on a side matter did you see the thread i made on a piece of legislation moved by Brown currently in commity in the senate?

edit to add:
im sorry if that sounded a bit bitchy bells, i didnt mean it that way. All i ment was that just because a person has an ajender doesnt mean they are automatically wrong. Take pollies as an example, there ajender is to get relected, doesnt mean that all there legislation is incorrect just because they are doing it to get back into power

 

[Bells]

of course he does, and i could well say that by your own admission that the procicuter was only interested in his own carreer rather than the facts of ANY case. That was YOUR complaint with the system after all.

She was found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder. I personally do not know if the prosecutor did a plea deal. But the fact that she changed her plea from innocent to guilty of manslaughter says a lot in that regard.

I still suggest you watch the documentry he made

When I can find the time to sit down and watch it, I will.

im sorry if that sounded a bit bitchy bells, i didnt mean it that way. All i ment was that just because a person has an ajender doesnt mean they are automatically wrong. Take pollies as an example, there ajender is to get relected, doesnt mean that all there legislation is incorrect just because they are doing it to get back into power

Let me reiterate an important point.

Dr Nitschke has told the Supreme Court he was asked by Swiss mercy killing organisation Dignitas to check Mr Wiley's capacity to make the decision to take his own life.

He assessed Mr Wiley's mental capacity and said that while the man could not remember his children, he was aware of his condition and wanted to go to Switzerland for an assisted suicide.

Dr Nitschke was accused of being "hell bent" on assisting the suicide.

Under cross-examination by Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi QC, the doctor said he had not reviewed independent testing from Concord Hospital about Mr Wiley's condition.

But he denied he failed to carry out a proper assessment.

Dr Nitschke told the court that he thought Mr Wiley should have the opportunity to travel to Switzerland for the service that was being offered.

How can he, a doctor, have made a proper assessment on a patient with advanced alzheimer's when he completely disregarded the fact that the patient was unable to remember his children and he had failed to review the independent testing about the advancement of the patient's condition when he recommended that he was able to make the decision to end his own life?

He is so hell bent on pushing his own agenda that he is failing the patients he is meant to be reviewing. You're telling me that a man with such advanced alzheimer's that he is unable to know or remember he even has children, was of sound mind to understand what euthanasia meant? Come on Asguard, you know better than that.

What of those he has counseled, who were not terminally ill, merely depressed? Ms Nigot is one such individual. There are, I understand, others. I'm sorry, but he is the worst advocate for euthanasia supporters.