Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a29f318fcd1926ee

Jump to content

S v Hartmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

S v Hartmann[1] is an important criminal case in South African law, especially in respect of its implications for euthanasia. It was heard by Van Winsen J from March 19 to 20, 1975, in the Cape Provincial Division, with judgment handed down on March 21.

Facts

[edit]

The father of the accused suffered progressively and untreatably from carcinoma in his prostate, and thereafter from secondary cancer. In the terminal and emaciating stages of his illness, with no cure available, and suffering great pain, he was induced by his son, a doctor, to come with him to Ceres Hospital, where he was given heavy doses of morphine and pentothal, and died within seconds. His son was charged with murder.[citation needed]

Findings

[edit]

The court found that the accused had had no desire to end his father's life; his motives were compassionate, directed at the relief of his father's pain and the termination of his pitiable state. He had been aware, however, that his actions would end his father's life, and therefore had sufficient murderous intention, dolus directus, for legal purposes.

Generally speaking, the consent of the deceased is no defence to murder in South African law.[2] Hartmann's father, of course, had been in no state to consent; had he been, however, it would have made no difference. Euthanasia is unlawful in South Africa, in that it amounts to murder. It was necessary, therefore, for the court to convict Hartmann of that crime.

The judge concluded, however, that "this is a case, if ever there was one, in which, without having to be unfair to society, full measure can be given to the element of mercy."[3] Hartmann was sentenced to one year in prison, nearly all of it suspended. He was detained until the rising of the court, after which he was free to leave.

References

[edit]
  • S v Hartmann 1975 (3) SA 532 (C) 1975

Notes

[edit]
  1. 1975 (3) SA 532 (C).
  2. See S v Everitt.
  3. 537F.