Assisted Dying

Question 1

Assisted Dying

Answer 1

includes both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

Question 2

Assisted Suicide / Physician Assisted Suicide

Answer 2

1. when a lay person (usually a friend/relative) assists in suicide → Helping.
2. doctor provides fatal prescription → Helping.

Question 3

Suicide Act 1961

Answer 3

Prohibits complicity in suicide – ‘an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another’.
→ Even distributing information can be an offence (Able)
Language updated in 2009 → now offence is one of ‘encouraging or assisting’ in suicide (Coroners and Justice Act 2009).

S2(4) SA: ‘no proceedings shall be instituted… except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecution’ → an extra layer of protection.

Question 4

Prosecution of Assisted Suicide

Answer 4

1. What are the chances of securing a conviction - must be enough evidence to give greater than 50%
2. Is it in the public interest to prosecute
3. Director of Public Prosecution’ must consent

Question 5

Euthanasia

Answer 5

The medic administers/injects the patient with drugs. Patient killed by doctors rather than self-administration → Actively killing.
MURDER

Question 6

Doctrine of double effect

Answer 6

 A doctor who administers morphine may have in fact caused death and will have sufficient intention (foresight) to be guilty of murder.
 BUT – the patient’s death is regarded as a mere side effect where the shortening of life is justified because death is neither the end nor how the aim (pain relief) is brought about.

R v Adams [1957] - ‘a doctor is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering, even if the measures he takes may incidentally shorten human life’ → acquitted.

R v Cox [1992] - Dr Cox provided a life-shortening drug which has no pain-relieving qualities → convicted of attempted murder.

Question 7

Pretty v DPP and Secretary of State for Home Dept [2001] and Pretty v UK

Answer 7

Ban on assisted suicide was in place to protect vulnerable people.
Facts: Diane Pretty was dying from Motor Neurone disease. Wanted to avoid distressing death. Sought protective immunity for her husband if he assisted her to commit suicide.
Lawsuit: Argued her rights under Art 2, 3, 8, 9 and 14 ECHR were violated.
Art 2 – right to life (and death?)
→ HL and ECHR felt Art 2 could not be interpreted in a way that conferred a right to die.
Art 8 – right to private and family life
→ HL held Art 8 not engaged
→ ECHR held possible that Art 8 is engaged but exceptions under Art8(2) were lawful and proportionate given the need to protect vulnerable people.
Art 3, 9 and 14 arguments were also unsuccessful.

Question 8

B v NHS Trust 2002

Answer 8

B won the right to have ventilation withdrawn allowing her to die (autonomy/consent).
→ Key here is omission v action.

Question 9

R (On the application of Debbie Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45

Answer 9

Overruling Pretty → HL ruled Art 8 IS engaged on the issue of an individual choosing to seek assisted suicide. Held existing prosecution policy under Art 8(2) was inadequate.
→ This caused the DPP to be tasked with producing an offence-specific policy.
The Policy
 Confirms that a lay person ‘wholly motivated by compassion’ to assist in the suicide of a competent adult who is determined to die is extremely unlikely to be prosecuted.

Question 10

DPP produced offence specific policy on public interest test for assisted suicide

Answer 10

Confirms that a lay person ‘wholly motivated by compassion’ to assist in the suicide of a competent adult (over 18 with mental capacity) who is determined to die is extremely unlikely to be prosecuted.

Question 11

Tony Nicklinson

Answer 11

In Nicklinson court acknowledges that the blanket ban on assisted suicide violates Article 8 but this is lawful as it is necessary for the protection of others.

Question 12

Noel Conway

Answer 12

Supreme Court refused to allow leave to apply.
* Because only Parliament can change the Suicide Act 1961 → and in view of recent decision of ECHR in Nicklinson, which confirms that member states may determine their own law in this area → chances of such a challenged succeeding are not sufficient to justify hearing the appeal.
* The statement also suggests that the court believes that Mr Conway might reasonably consider ending his life by treatment (ventilation) refusal together with palliative sedation.

Question 13

Ethical arguments for assisted dying

Answer 13

Autonomy, mercy/compassion, dignity

Question 14

Ethical arguments against assisted dying

Answer 14

Sanctity of life, slippery slope, vulnerable people, doctor/patient relationship