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.
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.
Terminally ill patients who want to commit suicide should be able to receive medical help to die, a government adviser on care for the elderly has said. Martin Green, a dementia expert for the Department of Health, said patients who were too frail to take their own lives were being denied “choice” and “autonomy” because assisted suicide is illegal in the UK. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he urged ministers to review the law and suggested that a referendum or a free vote in Parliament should be called to settle policy on the issue. “If you’re going to give people ‘choice’, it should extend to whether or not they want to die,” he said.
A man who is almost completely paralysed is taking legal action in a bid to end his life. His solicitors have told the BBC that they believe his case could have major implications for the way prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with assisted suicides.
The Claimant seeks three declarations, namely: i) A declaration that it would not be unlawful, on the grounds of necessity, for Mr Nicklinson's GP, or another doctor, to terminate or assist the termination of Mr Nicklinson's life. ii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that the current law of murder and/or of assisted suicide is incompatible with Mr Nicklinson's right to respect for private life under Article 8, contrary to sections 1 and 6 Human Rights Act 1998, in so far as it criminalises voluntary active euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. iii) Further or alternatively, a declaration that existing domestic law and practice fail adequately to regulate the practice of active euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary), in breach of Article 2.
In a decision released Friday, Madam Justice Lynn Smith says the Criminal Code provisions “unjustifiably infringe the equality rights” of the plaintiffs in the case, including Gloria Taylor, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Joseph Arvay, who represented Ms. Taylor, said that his client cried with relief on hearing the decision. He said that he does not know what her plans are. Mr. Arvay said he imagined that the government would appeal the ruling, but hoped they would not. A spokesperson for the federal government said the minister needed time to read the extensive ruling, but that they would be reviewing the judgment.
The claim that the legislation infringes Ms. Taylor’s equality rights begins with the fact that the law does not prohibit suicide. However, persons who are physically disabled such that they cannot commit suicide without help are denied that option, because s. 241(b) prohibits assisted suicide. The provisions regarding assisted suicide have a more burdensome effect on persons with physical disabilities than on able-bodied persons, and thereby create, in effect, a distinction based on physical disability. The impact of the distinction is felt particularly acutely by persons such as Ms. Taylor, who are grievously and irremediably ill, physically disabled or soon to become so, mentally competent, and who wish to have some control over their circumstances at the end of their lives. The distinction is discriminatory, under the test explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Withler, because it perpetuates disadvantage.
British Columbia’s Supreme Court ruled last week [in Carter v AG Canada] that provisions of the Criminal Code that ban physician-assisted suicide are unconstitutional. Madam Justice Lynn Smith suspended her ruling for one year to give Parliament time to draft new legislation. A government spokeswoman said Ottawa is still reviewing the judgment, but her reminder that Parliament voted not to change the physician-assisted suicide law just two years ago has only added to the sense that there will be an appeal. Ms. Taylor – a 64-year-old who suffers from Lou Gehrig’s disease – was granted a constitutional exemption that permits her to proceed with physician-assisted suicide during the one-year period, though she must meet a number of conditions.
VANCOUVER – Forcing sick patients to suffer through painful, agonizing deaths without the ability to ask a doctor to help them end their lives is akin to “torture,” a lawyer told the British Columbia Court of Appeal on Wednesday as he argued for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Joseph Arvay, who represents several plaintiffs in a case that saw the law struck down last year, said the ban on assisted suicide leads some patients with terminal illnesses to end their lives early, because they know they won’t be able to seek a doctor’s help if they become debilitated later. He said the federal government is forcing those patients to make a cruel choice between suicide and suffering. “The choice for those people is, if they comply with the law, they will suffer, and for some of the people the suffering could be tantamount to torture,” Arvay told a three-judge appeal panel.
The Supreme Court of Canada said today it will hear an appeal by the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) that could grant terminally ill Canadians the right to assisted suicide. The case seeks to allow seriously and incurably ill but mentally competent adults the right to receive medical assistance to hasten death under specific safeguards. Lawyer Grace Pastine, who will argue the case for the BCCLA, says the decision to hear the appeal is a victory for those who support the right to to die with dignity. "I'm feeling great now. This is an enormous relief, and I'm just so happy that now there will be an opportunity to argue this very important case in front of the Supreme Court of Canada," Pastine told CBC News on Thursday morning. Several witnesses in the case are very ill and the BCCLA applied to have it expedited. But the high court rejected that, and as is customary, it gave no reasons. That means the hearing to determine the future of assisted suicide in Canada will l
The SCC has agreed to hear the appeal in the Carter case, a case about physician assisted dying, from the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA). Both of the terminally ill patients involved in the Carter case, Gloria Taylor and Kay Carter, have now passed away but the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association will be arguing the case at the SCC. In June 2012, Madam Justice Lynn Smith of the B.C. Supreme Court found the current Criminal Code provision that prohibits assisted suicide to be unconstitutional. Justice Smith found that section 241(b) of the Criminal Code breaches the claimants’ rights under both sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. She further decided that those infringements are not justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter. In October 2013, the BCCA disagreed. The BCCA overturned the decision of Justice Smith on the basis that the constitutionality of section 241 with respect to section 7 and section 1 of the Charter was decided in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney