Assisted suicide -- Changing the law isn't the answer
Clare Dyer’s article (“Assisted Suicide – The Fight Goes On”)
attempts to make Lord Falconer’s case for changing the law to legalise
assisting the suicides overseas of terminally ill British people. As an
opponent of Lord Falconer’s proposed amendment to the Coroners and Justice
Bill I would like highlight some of its misconceptions.
As the Court of Appeal made clear recently in its Judgment on the
Purdy case, not all cases of assisted suicide involve “loved ones”. There
is a darker side to this story as well. For example, there have been at
least two well-documented deaths at Dignitas in which the deceased were
not terminally ill.
Of at least as great concern is that if the law’s prohibition were
removed, there would be much increased potential for coercion and
manipulation of terminally ill people by relatives wanting to be rid of a
care burden or anxious to inherit. Such abuse is not common, but it
exists; and it is held in check by the penalties that the law holds in
reserve to deal with people who have assisted suicides with malicious
motives.
Nor should we take at its face value the rather idealised picture
that is painted by the advocates of legal change – of terminally ill
people who are fully resolved to end their own lives and of doctors who
are fully competent and willing to assess their mental as well physical
state. In the real world, most terminally ill people are not so single-
minded as that: they are frightened and vulnerable, and many are
susceptible to perceptions, justified or not, that they are a burden to
their families or to fears, usually groundless, that they will die badly.
If surveys of medical opinion are anything to go by, many doctors would be
reluctant to assess patients for assisted suicide. As a result we might
expect to see the ‘doctor shopping’ that is such an unhappy feature of the
Oregon scene, with assessments being carried out by a minority of
physicians who are sympathetic to assisted suicide – a situation hardly
conducive to objective outcomes.
Clare Dyer records Lord Falconer’s view that “the current law has no
safeguards”. This is nonsense. The law’s prohibition of assisted
suicide, along with the penalties it holds in reserve, is itself a
powerful safeguard: it causes potential assisters to think very carefully
before embarking on such a course and to ensure that, if they do accede to
a serious request for assistance with suicide, their motives and actions
can stand up to serious investigation. In contrast, Lord Falconer’s
proposed licence to assist the suicides of terminally ill people would
have provided a get-out-of-jail-free card to assisters and opened the way
to coercion or manipulation of people who might have had second thoughts
once the licence had been issued.
Clare Dyer argues, from the support given to Lord Falconer by Lord
Low, himself a blind Peer, that “not all disabled people oppose [assisted
suicide]”. But Lord Low is not disabled in the same sense in which, for
example, Baroness Campbell, who spoke against Lord Falconer’s amendment,
is disabled. Lord Low is far from being in danger of being classified as
terminally ill. Baroness Campbell, on the other hand, would (in her own
words) “tick every box” of Lord Falconer’s proposals. In any case, while
there can be no doubt that disabled people who are also seriously ill
would be exposed by legal change, others suffering loss of faculty (such
as sight or hearing) could also be endangered by feelings of being a
burden to others. It is hardly surprising therefore that organisations
representing disabled people are worried by what they see happening.
Lord Falconer claims that his amendment would only (in Clare Dyer’s
words) “reflect what happens in practice”. Again, this is only half the
story. It is true that no assister of an overseas suicide has been
prosecuted to date on return to the UK. But the numbers involved are very
small - less than one in every 50,000 deaths of Britons over the last 10
years - and they have occurred against the background of a law that deters
all but really serious and resolute requests. In such circumstances the
risks of coercion or manipulation are small and it hardly surprising that
the Director of Public Prosecutions has seen no public interest case for
prosecuting in an overseas suicide case – though currently there is one
case in which prosecution is being undertaken for assisting suicide within
the UK.
Further, the complaint that the law as it stands is unclear is
nonsense. It could not be clearer. A person who assists suicide has an
important exercise to perform in personal responsibility. To assist
suicide is a crime. It may be prosecuted. If it is not in the public
interest to prosecute, the DPP will exercise his discretion accordingly.
This is predictable, and a protection for the vulnerable.
Clare Dyer says that Lord Falconer is thinking of returning to the
charge after the parliamentary recess. The Coroners and Justice Bill,
which is actually seeking to tighten the law’s prohibition of assisted
suicide, is no proper vehicle for these purposes. If there is to be
legislation, it should be tested first in the elected House of Parliament.
Rapid Response:
Assisted suicide -- Changing the law isn't the answer
Clare Dyer’s article (“Assisted Suicide – The Fight Goes On”)
attempts to make Lord Falconer’s case for changing the law to legalise
assisting the suicides overseas of terminally ill British people. As an
opponent of Lord Falconer’s proposed amendment to the Coroners and Justice
Bill I would like highlight some of its misconceptions.
As the Court of Appeal made clear recently in its Judgment on the
Purdy case, not all cases of assisted suicide involve “loved ones”. There
is a darker side to this story as well. For example, there have been at
least two well-documented deaths at Dignitas in which the deceased were
not terminally ill.
Of at least as great concern is that if the law’s prohibition were
removed, there would be much increased potential for coercion and
manipulation of terminally ill people by relatives wanting to be rid of a
care burden or anxious to inherit. Such abuse is not common, but it
exists; and it is held in check by the penalties that the law holds in
reserve to deal with people who have assisted suicides with malicious
motives.
Nor should we take at its face value the rather idealised picture
that is painted by the advocates of legal change – of terminally ill
people who are fully resolved to end their own lives and of doctors who
are fully competent and willing to assess their mental as well physical
state. In the real world, most terminally ill people are not so single-
minded as that: they are frightened and vulnerable, and many are
susceptible to perceptions, justified or not, that they are a burden to
their families or to fears, usually groundless, that they will die badly.
If surveys of medical opinion are anything to go by, many doctors would be
reluctant to assess patients for assisted suicide. As a result we might
expect to see the ‘doctor shopping’ that is such an unhappy feature of the
Oregon scene, with assessments being carried out by a minority of
physicians who are sympathetic to assisted suicide – a situation hardly
conducive to objective outcomes.
Clare Dyer records Lord Falconer’s view that “the current law has no
safeguards”. This is nonsense. The law’s prohibition of assisted
suicide, along with the penalties it holds in reserve, is itself a
powerful safeguard: it causes potential assisters to think very carefully
before embarking on such a course and to ensure that, if they do accede to
a serious request for assistance with suicide, their motives and actions
can stand up to serious investigation. In contrast, Lord Falconer’s
proposed licence to assist the suicides of terminally ill people would
have provided a get-out-of-jail-free card to assisters and opened the way
to coercion or manipulation of people who might have had second thoughts
once the licence had been issued.
Clare Dyer argues, from the support given to Lord Falconer by Lord
Low, himself a blind Peer, that “not all disabled people oppose [assisted
suicide]”. But Lord Low is not disabled in the same sense in which, for
example, Baroness Campbell, who spoke against Lord Falconer’s amendment,
is disabled. Lord Low is far from being in danger of being classified as
terminally ill. Baroness Campbell, on the other hand, would (in her own
words) “tick every box” of Lord Falconer’s proposals. In any case, while
there can be no doubt that disabled people who are also seriously ill
would be exposed by legal change, others suffering loss of faculty (such
as sight or hearing) could also be endangered by feelings of being a
burden to others. It is hardly surprising therefore that organisations
representing disabled people are worried by what they see happening.
Lord Falconer claims that his amendment would only (in Clare Dyer’s
words) “reflect what happens in practice”. Again, this is only half the
story. It is true that no assister of an overseas suicide has been
prosecuted to date on return to the UK. But the numbers involved are very
small - less than one in every 50,000 deaths of Britons over the last 10
years - and they have occurred against the background of a law that deters
all but really serious and resolute requests. In such circumstances the
risks of coercion or manipulation are small and it hardly surprising that
the Director of Public Prosecutions has seen no public interest case for
prosecuting in an overseas suicide case – though currently there is one
case in which prosecution is being undertaken for assisting suicide within
the UK.
Further, the complaint that the law as it stands is unclear is
nonsense. It could not be clearer. A person who assists suicide has an
important exercise to perform in personal responsibility. To assist
suicide is a crime. It may be prosecuted. If it is not in the public
interest to prosecute, the DPP will exercise his discretion accordingly.
This is predictable, and a protection for the vulnerable.
Clare Dyer says that Lord Falconer is thinking of returning to the
charge after the parliamentary recess. The Coroners and Justice Bill,
which is actually seeking to tighten the law’s prohibition of assisted
suicide, is no proper vehicle for these purposes. If there is to be
legislation, it should be tested first in the elected House of Parliament.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests