bulletin
The right to die? Pressure increases to clarify laws on assisted suicide
6 August 2009
The House of Lords has twice recently been asked to give its
opinion on this most difficult and morally perplexing matter. It
did so in the context of its roles both as a legislative body and
as a Court. It is perhaps a reflection of the anguished complexity
of the subject that it gave two apparently contradictory
responses.
On the one hand, Debbie Purdy won her appeal last week,
requiring Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
to give clearer guidance as to how discretion might be exercised in
considering prosecution of her husband for aiding and abetting her
suicide abroad, contrary to the Suicide Act. In the same breath
(quite literally referred to in Baroness Hale’s Judgement “As I
begin to write this opinion…”) the House last month rejected a
proposed amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill which would
have enabled people to assist someone with a terminal illness in
travelling to a country where assisted suicide is legal.
Mrs Purdy has multiple sclerosis and is inexorably
deteriorating. She believes that she will probably come to a point
when she no longer wishes to live and so will travel abroad,
probably to Switzerland, to die. The problem is, that she will not
be able to do this alone. She will need help from her husband and
is understandably anxious that he may be prosecuted for aiding and
abetting her death.
Unlike the equally high-profile case of Mrs Pretty in 2002, Mrs
Purdy was not asking for a guarantee of immunity from prosecution.
Instead, all she asked was that the Court look at the DPP
guidelines on exercising its discretion on prosecution and see if
they were adequate. The House of Lords did so and found they were
not.
There is no doubt that if he did enable Mrs Purdy to die in
Switzerland, her husband would fall squarely into the offence under
s 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961. There is, however, a significant
difference between falling within the technical definition of an
offence and a decision to prosecute. That lies with the discretion
of the DPP and it was this discretion that Mrs Purdy sought to
challenge – what guidance could she seek that would inform her
decision? The House of Lords found that the DPP’s guidance failed
to give the necessary accessibility to the public and also failed
to provide reassurance that the law will not be interpreted
arbitrarily.
The DPP stoically argued that it was impossible to give any more
detailed guidance as each case was so individual. He argued that if
any more specific guidance was to be given, it would restrict the
scope of the discretion necessary for the Director. The House of
Lords listened to these arguments patiently and sympathetically but
subsequently dismissed them. Lord Hope, delivering the most
detailed opinion, accepted the cases were few (though increasing)
and sensitive to individual facts. Never the less, he thought this
could not excuse the DPP’s failure to provide guidance to the
public to assist them in making a decision.
All of the Lords were emphatic that they were not supporting Mrs
Purdy’s right to travel abroad and end her life. With equal
emphasis, they confirmed that they were not seeking to legalise
‘assisted dying’. They were simply requiring the DPP to provide
clearer guidance as to how discretion in such cases would be
exercised in the future. The DPP is due to publish interim
clarification next month.
In one sense, this is a step forward for those campaigning for
the ultimate aim of enabling patients, such as Mrs Purdy, to die
with dignity at a time, and in a manner, of their own choosing. In
another sense, the House of Lords defeat of a proposed amendment to
the law, prohibiting aiding and abetting suicide, shows how deeply
concerned many remain about such a change of attitude. The
proponents of the ‘right to die’ may soon be reassured that they
will probably not face criminal prosecution for their actions, but
are a long way off from a fully legalised process to legitimise the
‘right to die’.
talk to us
|
|
|
Simon Tait
0115 976 6559/0121 237 3913
Partner and Head of Health
|
save to PDF
The content of this bulletin is provided for the purposes of
general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries
of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive
statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not provide a substitute for it.