A new campaign by disability rights activists to limit the right to die launches at Westminster on Thursday. The campaign - called Not Dead Yet UK Resistance - will be asking MPs to sign a charter in support of its aims. It says that disabled and terminally ill people should enjoy the same legal protection as everyone else. Those in favour of assisted suicide argue that opposing assisted suicide will condemn terminally-ill people to suffer needlessly. The Not Dead Yet UK's charter includes a commitment to oppose any changes to existing laws which state that assisting a patient to commit suicide is illegal.
A majority of surveyed Flemish physicians appear to accept physician-assisted dying in children under certain circumstances and favour an amendment to the euthanasia law to include minors. The approach favoured is one of assessing decision-making capacity rather than setting arbitrary age limits. These stances, and their connection with actual end-of-life practices, may encourage policy-makers to develop guidelines for medical end-of-life practices in minors that address specific challenges arising in this patient group.
A man with "locked-in syndrome" has begun legal action, asking the director of public prosecutions to clarify the law on so-called mercy killing. Tony Nicklinson, 56, wants his wife to be allowed to help him die without the risk of being prosecuted for murder. Mr Nicklinson, of Chippenham, Wiltshire, communicates by blinking or nodding his head at letters on a board. His lawyers say he is "fed up with life" and does not wish to spend the next 20 years in this condition. According to his legal team, his only lawful means of ending his life is by starvation - refusing food and liquids. His wife Jane says she is prepared to inject him with a lethal dose of drugs, but this would leave her liable to be charged with murder.
Fergus Walsh | 20:30 UK time, Monday, 19 July 2010 The case of Tony Nicklinson will re-open the debate on assisted dying and so-called "mercy killing". He has locked-in syndrome, following a stroke. Unable to talk, he communicates by blinking or nodding his head. He also has a specially adapted computer with a push-button control. Mr Nicklinson wants his wife to be allowed to inject him with a lethal drugs dose without the fear of her being prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. As the law stands, that seems a vain hope because actively taking a life, even with consent, has always been treated as a crime, leading to a jury trial.
Dying Auckland GP John Pollock says he will be "long gone" by the time the fiery debate on euthanasia has reached a resolution. Pollock, 61, ignited the issue last month when he went public calling for a review of the law which prohibits euthanasia for dying and suffering Kiwis. Pollock, who is suffering from metastatic melanoma, is now shying away from the spotlight, not wanting to spend his final days in a glare of publicity. But, he says, he has done what he set out to do - start an open and vigorous debate on a subject which has been more-or-less taboo up until now. "My part in all this is over," says Pollock. "I set out to ignite debate, and the fire has now been lit - in fact it's blazing. I'm not going to be the centrepiece for the fight. It's going to take donkey's years and I'll be long gone." The key, he says, is to get the medical profession on board.
Switzerland's laws that prohibit killing continue to apply in full. Direct, active euthanasia (deliberate killing in order to end the suffering of another person) is therefore also forbidden. By contrast, both indirect, active euthanasia (the use of means having side-effects that may shorten life) and passive euthanasia (rejecting or discontinuing life-prolonging measures) – while not governed by any specific statutory provisions – are not treated as criminal offences provided certain conditions are fulfilled. No legislative action is needed with regard to these three forms of euthanasia. Legal restrictions and a ban on organised assisted suicide are nonetheless open to debate. They are intended to protect human life better, and to prevent organised assisted suicide becoming a profit-driven business.
Objectives: To investigate why physicians label end-of-life acts as either ‘euthanasia/ending of life’ or ‘alleviation of symptoms/palliative or terminal sedation’, and to study the association of such labelling with intended reporting of these acts. Conclusions: Similar cases are not uniformly labelled. However, a physicians’ label is strongly associated with their willingness to report their acts. Differences in how physicians label similar acts impede complete societal control. Further education and debate could enhance the level of agreement about what is physician-assisted dying, and thus should be reported, and what not.
The new Scotland Parliament bill to legalize assisted suicide–which I noted in an earlier post, permits disabled or dying teenagers access to “end of life assistance”–clearly includes active mercy killing. Note that since the method of killing isn’t specified or limited, it would seem that any method agreed upon by the suicidal person and the killing actor would be legal, theoretically including being shot in the head, so long as it “allowed a person to die with dignity,” which is in the eye of the dying person, it would seem, and caused “a minimum of distress,” which a bullet to the head would provide. And it is very clear that the actual suicide assister/killer need not be the patient’s physician or, for that matter, even a health care practioner.
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.
Proponents of assisted suicide believe support for legalisation is growing among lawmakers and the public around the world. In the past year three names have been added to the list of places which permit it. The BBC's Vincent Dowd investigates whether assisted suicide is set to become even more common.
In a blow to the euthanasia movement, a jury has found one woman guilty of the manslaughter and another an accessory to the manslaughter of Alzheimer's sufferer and former Qantas pilot Graeme Wylie. Mr Wylie's partner Shirley Justins, 59, and his long-term friend Caren Jenning, 75, were accused of plotting to kill him. Justins was found guilty of manslaughter and Jenning of being an accessory to manslaughter. Mr Wylie, 71, died in March 2006 from an overdose of the veterinary drug Nembutal, which Jenning had bought and illegally imported from Mexico, and which Justins had given to him in their Cammeray home.