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.
Keir Starmer, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, is to clarify whether people should be prosecuted for aiding a suicide following a landmark ruling by the Law Lords last week. It had been assumed that this guidance would affect only cases in which friends or relatives helped people to die abroad, such as at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich. However, in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Starmer said the “broad principles” of his new guidelines would apply equally to acts of assisted suicide planned and carried out at home.
A government source said: "Parliament is currently divided on this issue, but it may be that after Starmer produces his guidance, politicians will recognise that this is an ethical issue that cannot be left" to the Crown Prosecution Service alone.
The editorial by Ira Byock (1) commenting on the report from van den Block et al (2) correctly says that only 22 cases of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurred (1.3% of all 1690 non-sudden deaths), suggesting that this means these actions ‘occur relatively infrequently’. However, there were a further 26 cases of 'life ending drugs without patient request'. Readers should know that this latter category consists of doctors who answered the same question in the same way as the doctors who are counted as having provided euthanasia or PAS, except that in a subsequent question the doctors indicated that the patient had not asked for euthanasia at the time.
A terminally ill patient confides in you his wish to pursue a path of assisted suicide.1 He asks you for information and support so that he can approach Dignitas and ultimately decide how and when he wishes to die. What would your response be? By providing a forum for discussion and supporting a patient’s decision would a doctor be assisting suicide or helping the patient to make an informed choice? Neither the BMA nor the General Medical Council offers any guidance on how a doctor should respond to a request for information about assisted suicide abroad. In contrast, I was clearly advised by the Medical Protection Society that “UK medical practitioners should refuse any involvement in the case of a patient wishing to discuss assisted dying, including the provision of medical reports or records that a patient might submit to Dignitas.” In addition, providing such information could be construed as constituting a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961.
The director of public prosecutions (DPP) must spell out clearly his policy on prosecuting people in England and Wales who help friends or relatives go abroad for assisted suicide, the UK’s highest court has ruled. The unanimous judgment from five law lords is a victory for Debbie Purdy, who has primary progressive multiple sclerosis and wants her husband to help her travel to Switzerland—where assisted suicide is lawful—when she decides to die.
Lawyers seek clarification on role of UK doctors in assisted suicide: The UK Medical Protection Society says it will question MPs in the autumn on whether doctors may be prosecuted if they provide medical reports about a patient’s condition or fitness to travel knowing that this information will be passed to clinics such as Dignitas that help people end their life. They are also seeking clarification on whether doctors have a duty to report a patient’s intentions to the authorities.
Assisted suicide after the Lords’ decision in Purdy v DPP [2009] UKHL 45 remains a criminal offence under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961. Whether the assisted suicide itself takes place within or outside the UK, assistance provided within the UK could be the subject of criminal prosecution. Any such prosecution would need the consent of the DPP. The House of Lords has asked the DPP to produce a policy structuring the discretion he exercises when deciding whether to consent to such a prosecution.
It is not just friends and family who want clarity about potential criminal prosecutions for helping someone travel abroad for an assisted suicide - doctors too may face criminal proceedings for offering advice or assistance under the current law. In this week's Scrubbing Up, the Medical Defence Union's Dr James Armstrong warns that doctors may be putting their livelihood and liberty on the line by becoming involved.
People who stand to benefit financially from a person’s death are likely to be the ones prosecuted for assisting a suicide, under guidelines to be issued this week. The law will remain unchanged but new rules will detail the factors that are likely to lead to a prosecution, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) said yesterday. Keir Starmer, QC, drew them up after the law lords backed Debbie Purdy, a multiple sclerosis sufferer who called for a policy statement on whether people who helped someone to kill themselves should be prosecuted. The policy, which will be issued on Wednesday, will aim to clarify when individuals are more likely to be prosecuted or more likely not to be, he said.
Guidelines on assisted suicide law will be published by the Director of Public Prosecutions this week to clarify when people are likely to be prosecuted. Keir Starmer QC told the BBC factors that would be considered included whether anyone helping in the suicide stood to gain financially. He said assisted suicide would remain an offence as the law was unchanged.
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.
There has been growing concern in recent years about whether current law is adequate to deal with misuse of the internet to promote suicide and suicide methods. The Government share the concerns that have been expressed about such misuse, in particular about suicide websites and the influence they may have over vulnerable people, especially young people.
There is evidence from outside the UK to show that physicians’ religious beliefs influence their decision making at the end of life. This UK study explores the belief system of consultants, nurse key workers & specialist registrars & their attitudes to decisions which commonly must be taken when caring for individuals who are dying. Results showed that consultants’ religion & belief systems differed from those of nurses & the population they served. Consultants & nurses had statistically significant differences in their attitudes to common end of life decisions with consultants more likely to continue hydration & not withdraw treatment. Nurses were more sympathetic to the idea of PAS for unbearable suffering. This study shows the variability in belief system and attitudes to end of life decision making both within and between clinical groups. The personal belief system of consultants was not shown to affect their overall attitudes to withdrawing life-sustaining treatment or PAS.
An Australian doctor stopped at Heathrow Airport when he arrived to hold workshops on euthanasia has been granted leave to stay in UK. Philip Nitschke was interviewed under the Immigration and Asylum Act after arriving from Australia on Saturday. Dr Nitschke plans to hold a workshop in Bournemouth, Dorset, on Tuesday to talk about assisted suicide.
Parliamentarians will make a new attempt next month to amend the law to give protection from prosecution to friends and family members who help a terminally ill person travel outside the United Kingdom for assisted suicide.
An act by an individual ("D") is not to be treated as capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another adult ("T") if— (a) the act is done solely or principally for the purpose of enabling or assisting T to travel to a country or territory in which assisted dying is lawful;
A "considered" and "objective" debate is needed on assisted suicide, the head of the Royal College of Nursing says. It comes after the RCN, which has 400,000 members, shifted its stance on the matter to be neutral.
The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has dropped its opposition to the concept of helping patients to commit suicide. The college has now adopted a neutral stance, neither supporting nor opposing a change in the law.
Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions has today said that, while there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction of Mark and Julie James in relation to the death by suicide of their son Daniel, such a prosecution is not in the public interest and no further action should be taken either against them or against a family friend who assisted them.
Campaigner Debbie Purdy has called for an "open debate" on assisted suicide laws after her landmark court victory. Prosecutors are to clarify the law after Law Lords backed Ms Purdy's call for formal advice on the legal position of those who help a loved one to die.
A woman with multiple sclerosis has begun a High Court challenge to clarify the law on assisted suicide. Debbie Purdy, 45, from Bradford, is considering travelling to Switzerland - where assisted suicide is legal - to end her life. But she fears her husband, Omar Puente, could be prosecuted for going with her when he got back to the UK.
A bill to legalise assisted suicides in Scotland is to be introduced by one of the country's best-known MSPs after a woman with multiple sclerosis failed to get a court ruling to allow her husband to help her die.
Two high court judges rejected Debbie Purdy's request for guidelines from the Director of Public Prosecutions on when assisted suicide cases would be prosecuted, saying it was a matter for parliament and not the courts.
A woman with multiple sclerosis has lost her Appeal Court case to clarify the law on assisted suicide. Debbie Purdy, 45, from Bradford, is considering going to a Swiss clinic to end her life, but fears her husband may be charged on his return to the UK. She wanted clarification of where her husband, Omar Puente would stand legally if he helped her in any way. But Ms Purdy said after the ruling: "I feel that I have won my argument, despite having lost the appeal."
Results: Laws on assisted dying in The Netherlands and Belgium are restricted to doctors. In principle, assisted suicide (but not euthanasia) is not illegal in either Germany or Switzerland, but a doctor’s participation in Germany would violate the code of professional medical conduct and might contravene of a doctor’s legal duty to save life. The Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill proposed in the UK in 2005 focused on doctors, whereas the Proposal on Assisted Dying of the Norwegian Penal Code Commission minority in 2002 did not. Conclusion: A society moving towards an open approach to assisted dying should carefully identify tasks to assign exclusively to medical doctors, and distinguish those possibly better performed by other professions.
The book strives for as complete and dispassionate a description of the situation as possible and covers in detail: the substantive law applicable to euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, withholding and withdrawing treatment, use of pain relief in potentially lethal doses, terminal sedation, and termination of life without a request (in particular in the case of newborn babies); the process of legal development that has led to the current state of the law; the system of legal control and its operation in practice; and, the results of empirical research concerning actual medical practice.
Lords publish report on Assisted Dying Bill The Committee has completed the inquiry. The Report [HL Paper 86] and was published on 4th April. The Committee examined the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. The Committee heard from more than 140 witnesses in the UK, The Netherlands, the US State of Oregon and Switzerland. It received 60 submissions of written evidence from organisations and more than 14,000 letters and e-mails from individuals.
Assisted dying – a summary of the BMA’s position July 2006 At the BMA’s annual conference in Belfast on 29 June 2006, doctors voted by an overwhelming majority against legalising physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. The current policy is therefore that the BMA: (i) believes that the ongoing improvement in palliative care allows patients to die with dignity; (ii) insists that physician-assisted suicide should not be made legal in the UK; (iii) insists that voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; (iv) insists that non-voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK; and, (v) insists that if euthanasia were legalised, there should be a clear demarcation between those doctors who would be involved in it and those who would not.