Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information:

  • Access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Legalising assisted suicide: keeping sight of the fundamental issues: commentary on… crossing the rubicon?
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Legalising assisted suicide: keeping sight of the fundamental issues: commentary on… crossing the rubicon?
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Legalising assisted suicide: keeping sight of the fundamental issues: commentary on… crossing the rubicon?
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Summary

Assisting another person's suicide is a criminal offence in England and Wales, although the offence is rare and the law allows for charges not to be brought where there has been no criminal intent. Campaigners for ‘assisted dying’ want something else – a law licensing assisted suicide in advance for certain groups of people in certain circumstances. The present law has been challenged in the courts, hitherto unsuccessfully, as incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court has taken the view that, given its social policy implications, this is a matter that Parliament is better placed to consider than the courts.

Footnotes

See pp. 369–377, this issue.

Declaration of Interest

R.P. is director of the think-tank Living and Dying Well, which takes the view, based on analysis of the evidence, that assisted suicide should not be legalised.

Suicide ceased to be a criminal offence in England and Wales with the enactment of the Suicide Act 1961. However, the Act made it a criminal offence to ‘aid, abet, counsel or procure’ the suicide or attempted suicide of another person. While the government of the day believed that people who attempted suicide should be treated with understanding and compassion, it wished to make clear that (to quote the words of the responsible minister in Parliament) ‘we wish to give no encouragement whatever to suicide’ (Hansard 1961).

This has remained the position of subsequent administrations. Indeed, the last government tightened the law, as part of wider-ranging legislation, by redefining the offence as one of ‘encouraging or assisting’ the suicide of another person (Coroners and Justice Act 2009: s. 59). The redefinition was considered necessary to enable the law to bite on internet encouragement to suicide, a circumstance that could not have been foreseen in 1961. During the debate on the relevant provision, the House of Lords rejected an attempt to exempt assistance given to persons intending to seek assisted suicide overseas in a jurisdiction where the practice is legal.

The 1961 Act recognised that assistance with suicide might cover a wide spectrum of criminality, from malicious assistance given for personal gain to compassionate assistance given after serious soul-searching. It therefore required that no prosecution should be undertaken without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). In 2010, following a judgment by what is now the Supreme Court, the DPP published a policy setting out how decisions in cases of assisted suicide were reached and what circumstances might be seen as aggravating or mitigating the offence (DPP 2010). Explaining the position in 2011 to a group, chaired by Lord Falconer, calling itself the Commission on Assisted Dying, the then DPP pointed out that ‘there is residual discretion for all offences whether to prosecute or not. This is a particular version of it. But it’s not unique by any stretch of the imagination; it’s the way our law operates’ (Starmer 2010).

‘Assisted dying’

It is against this legal background that proposals to legalise what is being called assisted dying need to be seen. The term ‘assisted dying’ has no meaning in English law. It is a euphemism coined by campaigners for legal change to mean what amounts in law to assisted suicide.

Both the existing law and the proposals for legal change accept that suicide should not be encouraged or assisted, but that there may be circumstances in which assisting someone to end his or her life need not be regarded as a criminal offence. Where they differ, and fundamentally so, is in how effect should be given to this principle. The existing law prohibits all assistance with suicide, but gives the DPP the discretion to assess, in the light of all the evidence of what has occurred, the degree of criminality in any individual offence and to decide whether in that instance a prosecution is needed. An ‘assisted dying’ law, on the other hand, would license assistance with suicide in advance, in prescribed circumstances, for defined groups of people and based on assessments of such things as motivation and state of mind. This raises a serious issue of principle – namely, whether it is appropriate that the law should license, in certain circumstances and for some groups of people, an act that in other circumstances and for everyone else is regarded as criminal.

The courts

Over the past 10–15 years there have been a number of appeals to the courts to rule that the current law is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically with article 8 (Box 1). In its judgment on the latest appeal, delivered on 25 June 2014, the Supreme Court was divided on the question and felt that important issues of social policy were involved that Parliament was better placed to consider than are the courts (R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38).

BOX 1 Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Right to respect for private and family life

  1. 1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

  2. 2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The medical dimension

The proposals for legal change differ from the existing law in another important respect, in that they envisage doctors as the assisters of suicide by placing on their shoulders the assessment of requests and the supply of lethal drugs. This concept of physician-assisted suicide raises significant difficulties, not the least of them being that the British Medical Association, the medical Royal Colleges (BMA 2014; RCGP 2014; RCP 2014; RCS 2014) and the majority of practising doctors do not regard assisting patients’ suicides as an acceptable part of clinical practice (RCGP 2014).

It is therefore of interest that in his 25 June judgment (at para. 123) the President of the Supreme Court speculated that the balance between giving some individuals assistance to end their lives and ensuring that others were not exposed to harm as a result might possibly be achieved ‘if no assistance could be given to a person who wishes to die unless and until a Judge of the High Court has been satisfied that his wish to do so was voluntary, clear, settled and informed’. Parallels were offered of other life or death situations, including requests for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration and for the switching off of life-support equipment, which had been handled in recent years by the High Court.

The fundamental issues

Whether ‘assisted dying’ should be legalised is a complex question, transcending as it does the law, clinical practice, mental health, ethics and society. Amid all the (often emotive) claims and counterclaims it is necessary to keep in sight what is the essential question. This is not ultimately an issue of compassion or morality or choice. These are common currency to both sides of the debate and sound arguments can be advanced both for and against legalising assisted suicide on all these grounds. The essential question is whether the law should be changed to make it lawful to supply some people and in some circumstances with the means to end their lives. That would represent a major change to the criminal law. Before it could be responsibly contemplated, there is a need for clear evidence that the law as it stands is not fit for purpose; and, if that is the case, that what would be put in its place would be better. It is on this that the debate needs to focus.

References

British Medical Association (2014) BMA reiterates opposition to assisted dying. BMA (http://bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/news/2014/july/bma-reiterates-opposition-to-assisted-dying). Accessed 23 Sep 2014.
Director of Public Prosecutions (2010) Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide. Crown Prosecution Service.
Hansard (1961) HC Deb 19 July, vol 644, cols 1425–6.
Royal College of General Practitioners (2014) RCGP announces continued opposition to change in law on assisted dying. RCGP (http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2014/february/rcgp-remains-opposed-to-any-change-in-the-law-on-assisted-dying.aspx). Accessed 23 Sep 2014.
Royal College of Physicians (2014) Statement from RCP Council on assisted dying. RCP (https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/update/statement-rcp-council-assisted-dying). Accessed 23 Sep 2014.
Royal College of Surgeons (2014) House of Lords Briefing: Assisted Dying Bill. Second Reading. RCS (http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/policy/documents/HLSecondReadingRCSBriefingJuly2014.pdf/view). Accessed 23 Sep 2014.
R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38.
Starmer, K (2010) Transcript of Evidence From Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions. Commission on Assisted Dying (http://commissiononassisteddying.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Keir-Starmer-Transcript-Final1.pdf).