The Right To Die? Pressure Increases To Clarify Laws Surrounding Assisted Suicide

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...