New guidelines on assisted suicide will apply to people who help their loved ones die both in Britain and abroad, the Director of Public Prosecutions has disclosed, The Daily Telegraph reports.
Keir Starmer, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, is to clarify whether people should be prosecuted for aiding a suicide following a landmark ruling by the Law Lords.
Though it had been assumed that this guidance would affect only cases in which friends or relatives helped people to die abroad, such as at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich.
According to the BBC, Mr Starmer said: “This policy is going to cover all assisted suicides. The same broad principles will apply. They've got to apply to all acts, in the jurisdiction or out of it.
“We won't have separate rules for Dignitas,”
Mr Starmer says he would not be arguing for the wholesale changes in the law, but said “Parliament has to speak” on the irregularity of assisted suicide being illegal in Britain but permitted in Switzerland, according to The Daily Telegraph.
The DPP has reportedly been reluctant to clarify the law for fear of making it easier for unprincipled relatives who might want to bring about the death of an elderly relative for threatening reasons.
In the interview with The Daily Telegraph, he provides an insight into the difficulties he faced in drafting the new guidelines.
He said: “On the question of whether this is better dealt with by Parliament, there’s nothing much I can do to nudge them along.
“They’re divided, there’s no inclination to change the law, so we have no choice but to produce this policy.
Mr Starmer did not insist that he would prefer Parliament to rule on the matter, however, he provokes the Government to intervene in such a sensitive area.
Meanwhile, he accepted that the House of Lords judgment gave him a mandate to shape the law.
He gave an example of 23-year-old paralysed playing rugby who died at the Swiss clinic, to illustrate his point that the location of a suicide would make no difference.
He said: “The factors we took into account — whether he was exercising individual judgment, whether there was any undue influence by the parents, whether they sought to persuade rather than assist him — will be as relevant for those acting inside the jurisdiction as for those acting outside.”
The change of assisted suicide guidelines was ordered after Debbie Purdy won her case ruled by the Law Lords.
She wants to know whether her husband would be prosecuted if he assisted her to commit suicide at the Dignitas in Switzerland.
Under the previous guidelines - the 1961 Suicide Act covering England and Wales, those who aid, abet, counsel or procure someone else's suicide can be prosecuted and sentenced to serve up to 14 years in jail, the BBC reports.
Though to date, nobody was prosecuted when assisting their relatives commit suicide abroad.
Showing posts with label Debbie Purdy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debbie Purdy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Friday, 31 July 2009
Bid to Clarify Assisted Suicide Law
A terminally ill campaigner wins her long legal battle to clarify the law on assisted suicide, the Daily Telegraph reports.
Debbie Purdy, a woman with multiple sclerosis was told the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will issue urgent guidance on what is and is not legal on assisted suicide.
Ms Purdy brought the case against the DPP because she wanted to know if her husband, Omar Puente would be prosecuted if he were to help her commit suicide overseas.
On Monday 27 July, the highest court in the land – the House of Lords - agreed that the law on assisted suicide was unclear, and then three days later, 30 July, the same court issued a historic judgement that could finally remove the fear of prosecution from people who travel abroad to support relatives seeking an assisted suicide, the Guardian reports.
Speaking outside the House of Lords after the judgement, Ms Purdy, from Bradford, said she was “ecstatic”.
“I am eagerly awaiting the DPP’s policy publication so that we can make an informed decision to make sure what we do does not risk prosecution, I feel like I have my life back,” she said.
“I want to live my life to the full, but I don’t want to suffer unnecessarily at the end of my life. This decision means that I can make an informed choice, with Omar, about whether he travels abroad with me to end my life because we will know exactly where we stand,” said the Daily Telegraph.
In a unanimous ruling, five law lords backed a call by Purdy for the DPP to immediately draw up a policy that would spell out when prosecutions would and would not be pursued.
It is reportedly the first time that the DPP has been asked by the courts to outline the circumstance under which he would prosecute, the Guardian reports.
The Daily Telegraph said under the 1961 Suicide Act, aiding and abetting suicide is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in jail.
Though no one has been prosecuted so far, many people have been questioned by police after helping relatives to end their lives at Clinic Broad.
To date, 115 people have committed suicide at Swiss Digintas clinic.
Last October, the High Court rejected Ms Purdy’s call for a clarification of the law and in February she lost an appeal.
However, after a two-day hearing in June, five Law Lords ruled in her favour. They said it would be a breach of her human rights not to allow her to end her life with respect and dignity and also criticised the DPP’s refusal to advise on when a prosecution would be brought.
In the judgment, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said: “The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal of Ms Purdy. First, they held that the present law interfered with her right to respect for her private life.
“Everyone has the right to respect for their private life and the way that Ms Purdy determines to spend the closing moments of her life is part of the act of living,” they said.
“Ms Purdy wishes to avoid an undignified and distressing end to her life. She is entitled to ask that this too must be respected,” the Daily Telegraph reports.
In addition, the five Low Lords required the DPP to prepare an offence-specific policy that identified the facts and circumstances that he would take into consideration in deciding, in a case such as Ms Purdy’s, whether or nor to prosecute.
They said: “At present, there is simply not sufficiently clear or relevant guidance available as to how the discretion given to the Director is to be exercised,”
“In a highly unusually and extremely sensitive case of this kind, the Code for Crown Prosecutors offers almost no guidance at all. A custom-built policy statement is required.”
The Law Lords added that changes in the law on assisted suicide would have to be decided upon by Parliament.
On the other side, some of the religious leaders and disability campaigners opposed the amendment of the law related with assisted suicide, as they express their fear it would put pressure on vulnerable people to kill themselves.
Debbie Purdy, a woman with multiple sclerosis was told the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will issue urgent guidance on what is and is not legal on assisted suicide.
Ms Purdy brought the case against the DPP because she wanted to know if her husband, Omar Puente would be prosecuted if he were to help her commit suicide overseas.
On Monday 27 July, the highest court in the land – the House of Lords - agreed that the law on assisted suicide was unclear, and then three days later, 30 July, the same court issued a historic judgement that could finally remove the fear of prosecution from people who travel abroad to support relatives seeking an assisted suicide, the Guardian reports.
Speaking outside the House of Lords after the judgement, Ms Purdy, from Bradford, said she was “ecstatic”.
“I am eagerly awaiting the DPP’s policy publication so that we can make an informed decision to make sure what we do does not risk prosecution, I feel like I have my life back,” she said.
“I want to live my life to the full, but I don’t want to suffer unnecessarily at the end of my life. This decision means that I can make an informed choice, with Omar, about whether he travels abroad with me to end my life because we will know exactly where we stand,” said the Daily Telegraph.
In a unanimous ruling, five law lords backed a call by Purdy for the DPP to immediately draw up a policy that would spell out when prosecutions would and would not be pursued.
It is reportedly the first time that the DPP has been asked by the courts to outline the circumstance under which he would prosecute, the Guardian reports.
The Daily Telegraph said under the 1961 Suicide Act, aiding and abetting suicide is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in jail.
Though no one has been prosecuted so far, many people have been questioned by police after helping relatives to end their lives at Clinic Broad.
To date, 115 people have committed suicide at Swiss Digintas clinic.
Last October, the High Court rejected Ms Purdy’s call for a clarification of the law and in February she lost an appeal.
However, after a two-day hearing in June, five Law Lords ruled in her favour. They said it would be a breach of her human rights not to allow her to end her life with respect and dignity and also criticised the DPP’s refusal to advise on when a prosecution would be brought.
In the judgment, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said: “The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal of Ms Purdy. First, they held that the present law interfered with her right to respect for her private life.
“Everyone has the right to respect for their private life and the way that Ms Purdy determines to spend the closing moments of her life is part of the act of living,” they said.
“Ms Purdy wishes to avoid an undignified and distressing end to her life. She is entitled to ask that this too must be respected,” the Daily Telegraph reports.
In addition, the five Low Lords required the DPP to prepare an offence-specific policy that identified the facts and circumstances that he would take into consideration in deciding, in a case such as Ms Purdy’s, whether or nor to prosecute.
They said: “At present, there is simply not sufficiently clear or relevant guidance available as to how the discretion given to the Director is to be exercised,”
“In a highly unusually and extremely sensitive case of this kind, the Code for Crown Prosecutors offers almost no guidance at all. A custom-built policy statement is required.”
The Law Lords added that changes in the law on assisted suicide would have to be decided upon by Parliament.
On the other side, some of the religious leaders and disability campaigners opposed the amendment of the law related with assisted suicide, as they express their fear it would put pressure on vulnerable people to kill themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)