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.
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.
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.
Graeme Catto, former president of the UK General Medical Council, has called for parliament to legalise assisted dying "in some shape or form" for a small number of people experiencing unbearable suffering. Professor Catto said he was expressing his personal view and not that of the GMC, which as the United Kingdom’s regulator for doctors had to support the law of the land and therefore could have no position on assisted suicide. Speaking at a conference on the ethics of assisted suicide at the Royal Society of Medicine on 30 June, he said, "I genuinely believe that if there were a change in the law it would pose no insurmountable problems for doctors."
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.
The Society for Old Age Rational Suicide was established in Brighton and Hove, by several right-to-die activists and humanists, in 2009. Presently, the main objective of SOARS is to begin a campaign to get the law eventually changed in the UK so that very elderly, mentally competent individuals, who are suffering unbearably from various health problems (although none of them is “terminal”) are allowed to receive a doctor’s assistance to die, if this is their persistent choice. Surely the decision to decide, at an advanced age, that enough is enough and, avoiding further suffering, to have a dignified death is the ultimate human right for a very elderly person. Although there is much public support for this to become lawful in the UK, it is unlikely that Parliament (either at Westminster or in Edinburgh) will change the law, to help those who are terminally ill, for at least five to ten years.
Elderly people should be allowed to end their lives with the help of a doctor even if they are not terminally ill, according to a new campaign group that claims to have widespread support. The Society for Old Age Rational Suicide, led by a former GP known as “Dr Death”, says that pensioners should have the human right to declare “enough is enough” and die with dignity.
This End of life guidance covers three main issues: contemporaneous and advance refusal of treatment; withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment; assisted dying - euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The focus of this article is upon compassionate killings, that is, criminal cases where a parent/spouse has killed or assisted to die a child/spouse who was suffering from severe disabilities, debilitating injury, chronic or terminal illness. We argue that the partial defence of diminished responsibility, while appropriate for some cases, fails to acknowledge the compassionate and relational nature of these acts and thus fails to identify the quality of the harm committed. We also argue that the general defences of duress of circumstances and necessity, even if they were to be become available, are inappropriate. Developing the concept of ‘compassion’, which is a consideration in relation to prosecution for assisted suicide, we argue for the introduction of a partial defence of ‘compassionate killing’ which would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter in recognition of the killing as a responsive, relational act of care.
The Court of Appeal has given its judgment in the Tony Nicklinson, Paul Lamb and 'Martin' cases, involving three physically disabled men who challenged the laws that make euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal. The ruling is unlikely to provide much comfort to Tony Nicklinson's family, who are continuing his fight for lawful euthanasia in the courts following his death in August 2012, or to Paul Lamb, who has taken Nicklinson's place in the judicial review proceedings. Part of Martin's appeal, which was argued on different grounds to that of Nicklinson and Lamb, was successful.