LONDON — Assisted suicide has been illegal in England for nearly 50 years. But, ordered by the courts to clarify the law, the country’s top prosecutor on Wednesday set out a list of conditions under which his office would be unlikely to prosecute people who helped friends or relatives kill themselves.
Campaigners hailed the guidelines as a victory for common sense. But “right to life” groups said that he had exceeded his authority. Groups from the Law Society to Dignity in Dying insisted that Parliament should still legislate. Mr Starmer said the list of factors weighing in favour or against a prosecution did not mean that assisted suicide was no longer a criminal offence. Lord Falconer of Thoroton, a former Lord Chancellor and the first Justice Secretary, who tried recently to reform the law, hailed the DPP’s guidelines as a “very, very significant step” and said he had “unquestionably changed the law”. “He has done what the law lords ordered him to do — give certainty to people as to what will happen if they decide to help their loved ones to die.”
Plans to relax the laws on assisted suicide have been thrown into doubt after a group of lawyers questioned the role of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Britain’s most senior judge. Lawyers from campaign group the Christian Legal Centre want the advice to be put on hold because of Lord Phillips’ personal sympathy those calling for the rules on assisted suicide to be realxed, which emerged weeks after the judgement was handed down.
The DPP's interim guidance on assisted suicide prosecutions leaves many questions unanswered, says Penney Lewis Despite the publicity surrounding it, assisted suicide remains rare in the United Kingdom. Anonymous surveys of doctors suggest that it is non-existent, although voluntary euthanasia is carried out by doctors in a very small fraction of cases. There are cases of assistance by non-professionals, resulting in a small number of prosecutions for assisted suicide – 16 since April 2005, according to the DPP.
A national survey of 3733 UK doctors reporting on the care of 2923 people who had died under their care is reported here. Results show that there was no time to make an ‘end-of-life decision’ (deciding to provide, withdraw or withhold treatment) for 8.5% of those reporting deaths. A further 55.2% reported decisions which they estimated would not hasten death and 28.9% reported decisions they had expected to hasten death. A further 7.4% reported deaths where they had to some degree intended to hasten death. Where patients or someone else had made a request for a hastened death, doctors were more likely to report expecting or at least partly intending to hasten death. Doctors usually made these decisions in consultation with colleagues, relatives and, where feasible, with patients.
The Medical Protection Society (MPS) is seeking clarification about the position of doctors who become aware that their patient is considering ending their life in circumstances that might amount to criminal charges. The recent House of Lords decision requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to look at the factors which would be taken into account in deciding whether to bring a prosecution in such cases is helpful. Much of the debate so far has focused on whether relatives or spouses should face prosecution for assisted suicide, but there also needs to be discussion over the difficult position health professionals may find themselves in. Currently, most patients will travel outside the UK, for example to the Swiss clinic Dignitas for an assisted suicide.
Amongst the latest, and ever-changing, pathways of death and dying, “suicide tourism” presents distinctive ethical, legal and practical challenges. The international media report that citizens from across the world are travelling or seeking to travel to Switzerland, where they hope to be helped to die. In this paper I aim to explore three issues associated with this phenomenon: how to define “suicide tourism” and “assisted suicide tourism”, in which the suicidal individual is helped to travel to take up the option of assisted dying; the (il)legality of assisted suicide tourism, particularly in the English legal system where there has been considerable recent activity; and the ethical dimensions of the practice. I will suggest that the suicide tourist—and specifically any accomplice thereof—risks springing a legal trap, but that there is good reason to prefer a more tolerant policy, premised on compromise and ethical pluralism.
The House of Lords in Purdy forced the DPP to issue offence-specific guidance on assisted suicide, but Jacqueline A Laing argues that the resulting interim policy adopted last September is unconstitutional, discriminatory and illegal. In July 2009, the law lords in R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] All ER (D) 335 required that the DPP publish guidelines for those contemplating assisting another to commit suicide. The DPP produced a consultation paper (23 September 2009) seeking to achieve a public consensus, albeit outside Parliament, on the factors to be taken into account in determining when not to prosecute assisted suicide. Although the consultation exercise is hailed by proponents of legislative change as a democratic, consensus-building and autonomy-enhancing initiative, there is much to suggest that, on the contrary, the guidance is unconstitutional, arbitrary and at odds with human rights law, properly understood.
The British Medical Association and the General Medical Council have already made it abundantly clear that they want no part in voluntary euthanasia becoming a clinical practice. Now the estimable Royal College of Physicians, the professional body representing over 20,000 physicians that “aims to improve the quality of patient care by continually raising medical standards”, has weighed in with a strongly worded letter to the DPP. “We would go so far as to say”, writes the College’s Registrar, Dr Rodney Burnham, “that any clinician who has been part, in any way, of assisting a suicide death should be subject to prosecution.” Dr Burnham continues: “The trust afforded doctors and nurses in particular gives their views considerable weight with their patients and the public. Clinicians’ duties of care entail active pursuit of alternative solutions to assisted suicide, not its facilitation.”
Sir Terry Pratchett has said he's ready to be a test case for assisted suicide "tribunals" which could give people legal permission to end their lives. The author, who has Alzheimer's, says he wants a tribunal set up to help those with incurable diseases end their lives with help from doctors. A poll for BBC One's Panorama suggests most people support assisted suicide for someone who is terminally ill.
Should those with incurable illnesses be allowed to choose how and when they die? In his Richard Dimbleby lecture, author Terry Pratchett, who has Alzheimer's disease, makes a plea for a common-sense solution. This is an edited extract of Terry Pratchett's Richard Dimbleby lecture, Shaking Hands With Death, which was broadcast on BBC1 on 1 February
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has today called for final contributions to his public consultation on his interim policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of assisted suicide. He said: "I have already received over 2000 responses from both individuals and organisations since I published my interim policy in September, which I am sure is an indication of the strong views many people hold on this issue. I urge those who may still want to contribute to send their views to my assisted suicide policy team. All the responses will be considered when drafting the final policy." The consultation is due to close at 5:00pm on Wednesday 16 December with the final policy due for publication in spring 2010. Until the final policy is published, the interim policy will be applied to all cases.
... over the years there have been numerous complaints by hon. Members regarding the persistent bias of the BBC on matters relating to euthanasia and other life issues and on the manner in which the BBC have misused public funds to promote changes in the law; ... the bias of the Corporation applies not only to news programmes but to drama, with thinly-disguised plays and soap operas being used to promote the use of euthanasia ...; ... these presentations have culminated in the last weeks with a multi-million pound campaign featuring Mrs Kay Gilderdale in Panorama and ... Sir Terry Pratchett, given centre stage to present this year's BBC Richard Dimbleby lecture calling for euthanasia and supported by the BBC website; ... every disability rights group in the UK is opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia on the grounds that from experience they know it would undermine the right to life of the disabled; ...
Today I am publishing the Crown Prosecution Service’s policy on encouraging or assisting suicide. When it passed the Suicide Act 1961, Parliament specifically required discretion to be exercised in every case and my consent is needed before any prosecution for assisted suicide can be brought. In the case brought by Debbie Purdy last year, the House of Lords understood that. It did not question whether there should be a discretion to prosecute or not. But, accepting that discretion, it required me, as DPP, to “clarify what [my] position is as to the factors that [I] regard as relevant for and against prosecution”.
On 25 February, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, launched the Policy for Prosecutors in respect of cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide.