Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Michael Irwin Am I breaking the law again? BMJ 2004; 328: 1440-b [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Time to test the law

Charles A. Foster   (16 June 2004)

Thank you, Mr. Foster

Michael H.K. Irwin   (23 June 2004)

Time to test the law 16 June 2004
Charles A. Foster, Barrister 6 Pump Court, Temple, London EC4Y 7AR Send response to journal: Re: Time to test the law	Michael Irwin (1), admits conduct, some of which appears to have taken part in the UK, which, if it led to or was intended to lead to a suicide in the UK, would appear to constitute a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. Section 2 makes it an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure either the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide. Dr. Irwin wonders aloud whether he is guilty of that offence. He is right to wonder. The point is a moot one.(2) The arguments are complex. This is not the place for them. That place is the court. Suffice it to say that it is at least arguable that the intended site of the suicide, and the lawfulness of the suicide in that jurisdiction, are irrelevant to the lawfulness of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring. On Dr. Irwin's own admission, the action of seeking to fix up the suicide seems to have been committed on UK soil. The admitted intention was to effect suicide. The prohibition in section 2 is not of seeking to effect an act deemed unlawful where it is intended to be committed. That would be to read too much into the section. The section seeks simply to prohibit suicide. Suicide means the same in Holland as it does in England. Parliament has passed a law which enshrines a plain principle: one should not help another to commit suicide. The principle has clearly been flouted here. Legal sophistry might give Dr. Irwin immunity from prosecution. It is important to know whether it does or not. Dr. Irwin has thrown down the towel to the Crown Prosecution Service. They should take it up. Charles Foster References 1. Irwin M. Am I breaking the law again? BMJ 2004; 328: 1440-b (12 June) 2. See, for example, Cox v Army Council [1963] AC 48; R v Harden [1963] 1 QB 8; R v Manning [1998] 2 Cr. App. R 461; R v Smith (W.D.) [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 1; Treacy v DPP [1971] AC 537 Competing interests: None declared
Thank you, Mr. Foster 23 June 2004
Michael H.K. Irwin, Retired GP Cranleigh, Surrey GU6 8BZ Send response to journal: Re: Thank you, Mr. Foster	Yesterday, on the phone, I thanked Mr. Charles Foster for writing the above Rapid Response ("Time To Test the Law"). Although he ("anti- choice") and I ("pro-choice") are on opposite sides of the debate for legalized doctor-assisted suicide for terminally-ill individuals, we agreed that the present legal uncertainties about residents of this country using the services of Dignitas, in Switzerland, needed to be resolved. Also, it is important to realize that the 1961 Suicide Act has an interesting loophole. It only applies to England and Wales! Last weekend, I was in Scotland, advising someone there on how Dignitas could perhaps be a serious option for her in the coming months. But, without any Suicide Act in that country, was the giving of this advice at all illegal? Competing interests: Member, Council, Friends At The End (FATE)