UK court will not hear challenge to assisted suicide law.

Press release: CNK CEO responds to the High Court decision not to allow a new challenge in the name of Mr Phil Newby

Date: Tuesday 19th November 2019
Link to the Press Release

Care Not Killing welcomes the latest rejection of an unnecessary legal challenge to the UK's assisted suicide laws by the campaigner Phil Newby.

Dr Gordon Macdonald, Chief Executive of Care Not Killing, commented:

'We welcome this decision by the Courts to reject the attempt to change the 1961 Suicide Act and introduce assisted suicide via the backdoor. As the ruling points out this is a matter for Parliament, not for judges.
'This ruling recognises that Parliamentarians across the UK continue to reject attempts to introduce assisted suicide and euthanasia - more than a dozen times since 2003 - out of concern for public safety, including in 2015 when the House of Commons overwhelmingly voted against any change in the law by 330 votes to 118. The current laws prohibiting assisted suicide and euthanasia do not need changing.
'It recognises the significant dangers of ripping up long held universal protections, that ensures the law treats all people equally and evidence from around the world confirms removing these protections puts vulnerable people at risk of abuse and of coming under pressure to end their lives prematurely. 

'Just a few week ago a major US report from the National Council on Disability found the laws in the handful of States that had gone down this route, were ineffective and oversight of abuse and mistakes was absent. 

'This was a highly significant and important report as those championing assisted suicide, like DiD, (formally the Voluntary Euthanasia Society), hold up Oregon and Washington as the model for making the change in England and Wales. 

'These findings resonate with other official reports that show year after year, a majority of those ending their lives in both States cite fear of becoming a burden a reason. 

'There are also problem outside these US states. In 2016, Canada changed their law to allow terminally ill people to request assisted suicide and euthanasia. In just three years the numbers of those dying this way has dramatically risen, with one Canadian academic reported a four-fold increase between 2016 and 2018, from 1,010 - 4235.
'Then in September, the Quebec Superior Court struck down the requirement that a person be terminally ill before they qualify for euthanasia in Canada. 

'While in July a depressed, but otherwise healthy 61-year-old man, was euthanised in the province of British Columbia. Alan Nichols, a former school janitor who lived alone, had struggled with depression, was admitted to Chilliwack General Hospital, BC, in June after he was found dehydrated and malnourished. Despite not being terminally ill, he received a lethal injection. Alan's case is not isolated.
'There are a growing numbers of reports that terminally ill patients and those with chronic conditions are being denied care, but offered the drugs to kill themselves. In one such case, Roger Foley from Ontario who suffers from a neurological disease, recorded hospital staff offering him a 'medically assisted death', despite his repeated statements that he did not want to die and wanted to return to his home.
'No wonder not a single doctors group or major disability rights organisation supports changing the law, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Geriatric Society and the Association for Palliative Medicine.'

Ends

NB: the ruling issued by Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice May can be read here. Mr Philippe Newby, a 49-year old with Motor Neurone Disease, had argued that the prohibition on assisted suicide interfered with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. An initial application was declined in September by Ms Justice Whipple, who was one of the judges in the case of Noel Conway, and this latest ruling finds that:

'despite minor distinctions to be made in the conditions of the claimants, Conway is an authoritative case for present purposes, and in our judgment is binding on this court in relation to this issue... Notwithstanding the forensic analysis of the opinions in Nicklinson, the court is not an appropriate forum for the discussion of the sanctity of life, or for resolution of such matters which go beyond analysis of evidence or judgment governed by legal principle.'

Editors Notes
For media inquiries, please contact Alistair Thompson on 07970 162225.

• Care Not Killing is a UK-based alliance bringing together human rights and disability rights organisations, health care and palliative care groups, faith-based organisations groups, and thousands of concerned individuals. We have three key aims:
• to promote more and better palliative care;
• to ensure that existing laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are not weakened or repealed;
• to inform public opinion further against any weakening of the law.We seek to attract the broadest support among health care professionals, allied health services and others opposed to euthanasia by campaigning on the basis of powerful arguments underpinned by the latest, well-researched and credible evidence.

Care Not Killing welcomes decision to reject legal challenge to UK suicide law

Press Release issued on behalf of Care Not Killing 

RELEASE DATE: Thursday 5th October 2017 

Link to the press release.

Care Not Killing welcomes the decision to reject another legal challenge to the Suicide Act 1961 today.

Mr Conway's case is substantially the same as that of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb in 2014, except that his condition is terminal.

Those supporting changing the law argue that a blanket ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia is a breach of Mr Conway's human rights. However the judges in the High Court have yet again emphatically rejected this.

The senior and highly experienced judges concluded that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Right to respect for private life) is not unlimited, but a qualified right and did not extend to compelling the State and doctors to provide the lethal cocktail of barbiturates for Mr Conway and other terminally ill people to kill themselves. In a free democratic society health, morals and the rights and freedoms of others must be protected and granting Conway his wish would have undermined this.

Dr Peter Saunders, Campaign Director of Care Not Killing, commented:

There have been over ten attempts to legalise assisted suicide through British Parliaments since 2003, all of which have failed. The last in 2015 was defeated by an overwhelming majority of MPs (330 to 118) in the House of Commons amidst real and well founded concerns about public safety.

'A change in the law is opposed by every major disability rights organisation and doctors' group, including the BMA, Royal College of GPs and the Association for Palliative Medicine. These groups have looked at this issue on numerous occasion in detail and concluded that there is no safe system of assisted suicide and euthanasia anywhere in the world.

'Laws in the Netherlands and Belgium that were only meant to apply to mentally competent terminally ill adults, have been extended to include elderly and disabled people, those with mental health problems and even non-mentally competent children. While in Oregon, the model often cited by those wanting to change the law, there are examples of cancer patients being denied lifesaving and life extending drugs, yet offered the lethal cocktail of barbiturates to end their own lives.

'At the heart of this legal challenge was an attempt to treat the terminally ill and disabled people differently in law by removing important and universal legal protections. The judges understood that the current law protects vulnerable people from being pressured to end their lives, because of real, or imagined fears of being a burden upon relatives, carers or on a state and health care system that is short of resources.

'The safest law is the one we currently have, which gives a blanket prohibition on all assisted suicide and euthanasia. This deters exploitation and abuse through the penalties that it holds in reserve, but at the same time gives some discretion to prosecutors and judges to temper justice with mercy in hard cases.

'We welcome the decision by the High Court to completely reject this attempt to change the law and hope that as a society we can now turn our attention to the important issue of ensuring the highest level of palliative and social care for disabled people, the terminally ill and how we fund that.'

For media inquiries, please contact Alistair Thompson of Media Intelligence Partners Ltd on 07970 162225 or 0203 008 8145.

Notes for Editors

Care Not Killing is a UK-based alliance bringing together around 50 organisations - human rights and disability rights organisations, health care and palliative care groups, faith-based organisations groups - and thousands of concerned individuals.

We have three key aims:

• to promote more and better palliative care; 
• to ensure that existing laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are not weakened or repealed during the lifetime of the current Parliament; 
• to inform public opinion further against any weakening of the law.

Euthanasia is not a human right in Europe.

The following article was published by Wesley Smith on his blog on July 17, 2015.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley Smith

Two cases were brought to the European Court on Human Rights hoping for a Canada-style EU-wide imposition of euthanasia as a fundamental right. Case dismissed. From the Telegraph story:

The European Court of Human Rights has rejected a right-to-die case brought by a paralysed former builder and the widow of man who had locked-in syndrome. 

Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson, whose 58-year-old husband Tony died more than two years ago, brought the case at the court in Strasbourg – the culmination of their campaign that disabled people should have the right to be helped to die with dignity. 

But in a written judgment on Thursday, the court said: “In its decision in the case of Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the applications inadmissible. The decision is final.” 

It comes after it emerged on Wednesday that two sisters are holding a party to raise £8,000 to pay for their mother to end her life in a Swiss clinic.

By the way, the, “Hey kids, let’s raise money for mom to kill herself!” party is off. 

I am very pleased by the decision. If this toxic death-dealing is to become legal, it should be through democratic processes. 

The Telegraph’s story about the case involved two people with serious disabilities. Despite that, the paper is running poll asking whether assisted suicide should be legalized for the “terminally ill.” So typical.

European Court of Human Rights rejects assisted suicide case.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg
International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Today, the European Court of Human Rights rejected a case to overturn Britain's assisted suicide law.

The case was brought to the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg by Jane Nicklinson, the widow of Tony Nicklinson, a man who had lived with locked-in syndrome and Paul Lamb who had become paralyzed in an accident.

In rejecting the case, the European Court of Human Rights stated that:

the UK Parliament was "best placed" to rule on such a sensitive issue.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

On June 25, 2014; the UK Supreme Court also rejected an attempt by Nicklinson and Lamb to overturn the laws protecting people from assisted suicide. Not Dead Yet UK spokesperson, Kevin Fitzpatrick, responded to the UK Supreme Court decision by stating:

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are profoundly dangerous, irrespective of such hard cases, not least because they pose a very grave risk to thousands of disabled people who have been made vulnerable by cuts in health and social care services and welfare benefits, making some feel they would be better off dead and no longer a burden on their family and friends.

The British House of Commons will be debating a bill to legalize assisted suicide this fall.

Not Dead Yet UK recently sent a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron explaining why they oppose assisted suicide and organized a rally featuring an excellent speech by disability leader and actress Liz Carr.

Assisted Suicide: “No amount of safeguarding will ever be enough”

The following article was published on the blog of the disability rights group Scope in the UK.

Juliet Marlow

Juliet Marlow, a disability rights campaigner and member of Not Dead Yet UK, explains why she is against legalising assisted suicide.

"I want support to live, not to die!"

By Juliet Marlow

Lord Falconer’s Private Member’s Bill proposing the legalisation of doctor-assisted suicide (AS) for those with six months or less to live will receive its third reading in the House of Lords today, Friday 16 January.

This isn’t the first time the matter has been debated. Every few years somebody will make the proposal only for it to be nervously put aside. But this time feels different. Despite its controversial nature it seems the idea has somehow caught public imagination and there is a very real chance that this time it could become law.

My name is Juliet. I’m 44, married, a PhD student and freelance writer. I sing in a rock/pop band and mostly love my life. I have been disabled since I was four; I use a wheelchair and rely on PAs to assist me with pretty much everything. I am also passionately opposed to the legalisation of AS.

On the surface, AS doesn’t look that unreasonable. People know that sick and disabled people have had to fight hard for control of our own lives so naturally they assume we want to control our deaths too.

Not Dead Yet

I am proud to belong to the anti-AS campaign group Not Dead Yet UK. Most of us have personal experience of disability and our reasons for opposing the Bill will vary. But our core arguments are that it is unnecessary and unsafe. No amount of safeguarding will ever be enough to protect all vulnerable people, all the time. And that is a terrifying thought for those of us who face illness and death every day.

Sympathy and fear are the pro-AS lobby’s weapons of choice. Sympathy is hard to fight because some of their campaigners genuinely want to try and prevent future suffering. Nevertheless, I respectfully suggest they have missed the point – it is society that robs people of a ‘good death’, not illness. With proper pain medication and decent patient-centred palliative care, a ‘good death’ can be had. It’s never easy but it can be effectively managed to prevent unnecessary suffering.

Fear is much harder to counteract. People will die in pain and distress unless the authorities ensure all terminally ill people get the palliative support they need. It is no coincidence that at a time of savage public funding cuts, the AS question has raised its ugly head again. It is because the misguided belief that society will always take care of its most vulnerable citizens has been tarnished, exposed as a lie.

Life not death

Our solution is not to control when and how we die, but to focus on life rather than death. We choose to campaign, protest and fight until the authorities introduce a cast-iron, needs-led end-of-life service that allows each of us to live to our natural end without pain and imagined ‘loss of dignity’.

The suggestion that dignity is lost through illness and can only be reclaimed by controlling the manner of your death is not only ignorant, but insulting to disabled people who have fought to build a meaningful life. If there is any loss of dignity then it is inflicted; it is not a natural state that can be avoided by dying early. I want support to live, not to die!

Assisted Suicide campaigners’ deaths prove we do not need to change assisted suicide laws

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick (OBE), Director of EPC - International.

W

Kevin Fitzpatrick
at European Parliament.

e do not ‘speak ill of the dead’. De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est, a mortuary aphorism that dates from at least the 4th century is, I suspect, rooted in a superstitious fear that the dead may come back to harm us if we say bad things about them; perhaps that we might ourselves be condemned to wander as ‘lost souls’ in revenge for badmouthing those who are gone. We may, at times, wish to honour the memory of someone we couldn’t stand in life, or whose works and their consequences we hated; but if we are to avoid dishonesty, insincerity, we must have the courage to stand by what we said when they were alive. We can still be properly respectful in how we speak.

Of course the rule does not apply universally, but it seems we only allow ourselves to tell hard truths if the dead person was truly bad, a mass murderer. Maybe that comes from recognising that we are all fragile, given to making mistakes, doing some bad things at times.

In any case, it is surely possible to distinguish between the person and their legacy. I met and debated with Debbie Purdy a couple of times and I thought she was wrong – she made what is called a ‘category mistake’ – mixing up the category of one individual saying ‘I want to die now’ with the idea that such a wish must be enshrined in law. Individual wishes are just that – individual. Laws cover every citizen of a state or jurisdiction in which they are passed - which means they are a whole different category. It was her campaigning for this category mistake to be legalised that brought us into opposition.

After hours of grilling by Tony Nicklinson, in an interview he had demanded, I asked him: ‘Say you get your way tomorrow and the law is changed, and the next day, even just one innocent person dies as a result - what would you say?’ He would not respond at that point, and terminated the interview.

But that is the point for me: if, as a campaigner, you cannot guarantee the safety of others, then the death of innocent people under such laws, even that threat, should stop the campaign in its tracks, force campaigners to re-assess what they are doing.

The legacy of such campaigners, three of whom (two in Britain, one in Australia) died ‘peacefully’ in hospice or palliative care settings over Christmas, is surely the biggest, final irony. These three died ‘good deaths’ without any change in law. They have proved there is no need for a change in law in the UK, in Australia, anywhere in the world.

Not Dead Yet - UK ‘campaign’ against the assisted suicide bill in the British House of Lords.

By Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick - Not Dead Yet - UK.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

In the (British) House of Lords, another attempt to legalise assisted suicide/euthanasia was debated at 2nd reading stage July 18, 2014 through Lord Falconer’s ‘assisted dying’ Bill. It was rumoured that a vote would be forced and it was estimated, in advance of the debate, that speakers for the assisted suicide would outweigh those against by a 2:1 margin. On the day of the debate, neither turned out to be so. The Bill ‘passed’ to the committee stage without a vote, after ten hours of discussion in the chamber, but to our pleased surprise speakers were split about 50:50 for and against the Bill.

The Not Dead Yet personal letter-writing/email campaign had a real effect, even after the proponents’ lobby swamped the Lords’ postboxes. This reinforces my deeply felt personal belief that letters from people with disabilities potentially outweighs numerous letters from our opposition; especially if the letter expresses truths, exposes the dissembling of those who favour assisted suicide.

Our hope and expectation is that the Lords will kill the Bill at the committee stage. We have hope, but we will not rely on that hope alone to defeat the Bill.

Jane Campbell

We had some very significant success in the British media, most notably a complete u-turn in a major daily, the Guardian, whose editorial appeared on the morning of the debate, in time for it to be cited by some of the Lords in their speeches. The phrase ‘this would change the moral landscape’ was repeated more than once. 

We started the week less well than we finished. Top-heavy reporting by the BBC ITN, other TV and radio stations plus the print media provided lots of negative coverage in the week before the debate.

There were many significant media ‘hits’ during the week which changed the balance in a way we had not experienced before. (There is a long way to go to get real balance but we made some in-roads into the media and thus, public consciousness.) 

Jane Campbell spoke on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. 

Tanni Grey-Thompson

Tanni Grey-Thompson spoke to BBC1’s This Week about the reaction from some people to her disability, and how: 

‘In their eyes, my life is not worth living.’ 

Pam Franklin spoke about living with MND (a similar situation to Tony Nicklinson, communicating through a computer), saying she was ‘too nosy to want to die’ and was someone with MND who always has ‘another book to read, another film to see’. Her story was broadcast on the main BBC News bulletins of the eve of the debate.

The same evening ITV’s flagship programme Tonight, featured terminally ill people for and against the proposed law and had selections from a debate filmed earlier, in which I participated. The editor gave everyone fair time and I was afforded the last word, which was very helpful. It was also notable for the balance of ‘terminally ill people for and against’.

It was the Guardian editorial that morning which stunned us all. One of Britain’s biggest ‘broadsheet’ daily newspapers, the Guardian has consistently been pro-assisted suicide including some polemic verging on the vitriolic. The morning of the debate, it published an editorial which, although they used a stock photo of the Nicklinsons, was an extraordinary u-turn. It pointed out that Nicklinson could not have benefitted from the proposed law, using the headline Lord Falconer's bill sounds modest but it will redraw the moral landscape.

Liz Carr

BBC’s Fergus Walsh interviewed Not Dead Yet leaders at the protest outside the House of Lords and used Liz Carr’s contribution in the evening bulletin: she really nailed it.

That evening I did a Radio 5 Live (national radio) interview against Tom Curran of Exit and a Scottish GP Dr Kerr who had euthanized patients. On our side, Roger Symes plugged away at the creepy doctor. The interviewing journalist Stephen Nolan is not usually the most accommodating, but he gave me the last contributions which lasted more than five minutes answering his questions, so it was a good finale to the day.

For the purposes of this summary, I have only reported some of the most significant media ‘hits’. There were many others, and our work especially through social media was a major step forward this time.

Jane Campbell: Why I oppose assisted suicide.

This article was published on June 24 by BBC news as part of an the article: For and against assisted suicide.

Baroness Campbell is disability leader and founder of Not Dead Yet UK, a network of people with disabilities in the UK who oppose the legalised killing of people with disabilities.

Baroness Campbell

By: Baroness Jane Campbell

Campaigners for a change in the law on assisted suicide present it as an extension of choice, giving those with chronic illness or disability the same "right" to end their lives as the rest of the population. When any other person seeks to end their life, we do not assist them. We help those with suicidal thoughts look for positives in their lives. I believe chronically ill and disabled people deserve that "right", to be helped by us all to live their lives.

As a severely disabled person, I fear a change in the law to permit assisted dying. Those arguing for a change do not offer any guidance as to who might be included or excluded from obtaining assistance. I have suffered illnesses that have brought me close to death and I am sure to do so again. Will the doctors who cared for me so expertly in the past, now be ready to offer an assisted death?

Many disabled people know first-hand how society fears illness and disability. Most people are concerned about being reliant on others for assistance. The media has done a service to us all by exposing neglect and abuse in hospitals and care homes. Such scandals always reveal the receivers of care have been dehumanised by the providers of care. Few would believe that every case of malpractice has been exposed or that abuse cannot also occur when care is provided within the family.

Many have seen loved-ones, particularly parents, become frail as their health deteriorates. The main reason given for wishing to die is not wanting to become a burden, whether their family would see it that way or not. Against this background, the "quick-fix" of an assisted death appears attractive.

It is precisely because that is the majority view that we must continue to oppose it. There is no better evidence of the negativity with which terminal illness, chronic illness, and disability is viewed than that we might be better off dead.

We would not give-up on a suicidal person in otherwise good health, we should not give up on a terminally ill or disabled person seeking an assisted death.

If assisted dying is really a "right" (and I'm convinced it is not), it must be available to all, including the fit and well who consistently say they are suffering intolerably, not just those who find themselves in extremely desperate and challenging circumstances due to their deteriorating health. I didn't want Tony Nicklinson to die and I don't want Paul Lamb to die. I respect and value them. I want them to carry on disagreeing with me for as long as possible.

Supreme Court (UK) Assisted Suicide Decision: Statements from Not Dead Yet and the Care Not Killing Alliance.

Statement from Not Dead Yet UK: 

Supreme Court (UK) Nicklinson Assisted Suicide Decision.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick

Naturally we sympathise deeply with the disabled people who brought this legal case and their families but there is much truth in the adage that ‘hard cases make bad law’.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide is profoundly dangerous, irrespective of such hard cases, not least because they pose a very grave risk to thousands of disabled people who have been made vulnerable by cuts in health and social care services and welfare benefits, making some feel they would be better off dead and no longer a burden on their family and friends.

Baroness Jane Campbell

We very much welcome, the ruling by the Supreme Court today because it protects the many whilst compassionately responding to the few by rarely prosecuting those who assist them with their wishes to die. 

Without this bright line we risk sleepwalking into state sanctioned killing.

Founder of Not Dead Yet UK Baroness Jane Campbell said: 

“We can only hope that Parliament will heed the wisdom of the court by rejecting Lord Falconer’s very dangerous Assisted Dying Bill.”

Contact: Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, Spokesperson/Researcher for Not Dead Yet UK for further information at: kevin@inclusion21.org or 07816671185

Care Not Killing welcomes Supreme Court Judgement.

'The law in England and Wales remains unchanged, with the Court recognising that it exists to protect vulnerable, elderly and disabled people'

The judgement of the nine Supreme Court justices (concerning assisted suicide and euthanasia) in the cases of Nicklinson/Lamb and 'Martin' was handed down on the morning of Wednesday 25 June, seven months after the appeals were heard. Those of Nicklinson/Lamb and of 'Martin' were dismissed, while that of the Director of Public Prosecutions was allowed.

Dr Andrew Fergusson, a spokesman for the Care Not Killing alliance commented:

'We welcome this judgement from the highest court in the land. 

'The law in England and Wales remains unchanged, with the Court recognising that it exists to protect vulnerable, elderly and disabled people. This is why Parliament has debated and repeatedly voted against changing the law in recent years. 

'You only have to look at what is happening in Holland and Belgium to see the dangers of weakening laws designed to protect the vulnerable. In Holland, euthanasia is often performed 'without explicit request' while according to reports, twins who might go blind and a transsexual have been euthanised by the state. In both countries euthanasia is being extended to disabled babies. 

'As Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and other disability rights campaigners have said, changing the law would be dangerous and discriminatory. It would send out a very clear message to those who are disabled, terminally ill or just old that their lives are less worth living and protecting than the lives of the young and healthy. 

'It is also worth noting that not a single major doctors group, including the BMA, Association for Palliative Medicine and the medical Royal Colleges backs changing the law on either assisted suicide or euthanasia. 

'The current law exists to protect the vulnerable and those without a voice: disabled, terminally ill and elderly people, who might otherwise feel pressured into ending their lives. It does not need changing - a fact recognised by the High Court, Court of Appeal and now in the Supreme Court ruling.'

Link to the Supreme Court UK Assisted Suicide Decision Press Summary. 

Link to the Supreme Court UK Assisted Suicide Decision. 

* Baroness Butler-Sloss: We tinker with assisted suicide laws at our own peril.

* Hard Cases Make Bad Laws.

* UK judges reject euthanasia but rule that more clarity is needed.

Euthanasia: Hard cases make bad laws.

This article was originally published by MercatorNet on April 3, 2014.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell - Executive Director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide and Vice Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International.

The pro-euthanasia lobby often promotes media reports of people facing difficult prognoses who wish to end their lives rather than face inevitable deterioration. Such persons often become, for a short while, celebrities for a macabre cause. The media attention can even become addictive and provide, a distraction from their suffering or a raison d’etre.

But are these stories really a substantive reason for changing the law? I would argue, no.

In a debate in Launceston, Tasmania, a few years back a delightful woman on the other side of the debate told the story of her husband who had motor neurone disease and took his own life rather than face the trajectory of deterioration. She described the understood trajectory of MND in some detail. I imagine that she was describing a worst-case scenario.

One could easily understand the anguish of what her late husband was facing: he was a fascinating person with great achievements. When I met his wife and son I got the sense that he would have been a wonderful person to have met. I imagine the audience that night must have felt the same.

Yet, at the close of the evening when the audience had a chance to speak, a woman rose from the back of the auditorium and said that her husband had recently passed away after suffering with MND. She told the audience that his death was, “nothing like that”, referring, clearly to the earlier description.

More recently I received an email from a gentleman questioning how I could hold my opposition to euthanasia and describing the recent loss of his own mother. He said that she had been bereft of consciousness for the better part of seven years and that her passing was not dignified.

My mother-in-law had been similarly lacking consciousness for much longer than that, as I relayed by return email. Yet Mum had a very dignified passing. My conclusion was simply that his unfortunate experience was not, therefore, an argument for euthanasia at all.

Readers will recall the celebrated pleas of Englishman Tony Nicklinson a few years back which were played out in the British Courts over his wish to die. Nicklinson had locked-in syndrome. Yet at the same time a young man with the same condition told the media that while his life had significant limitations, he had a good life. He wanted to let people know that not all locked-in syndrome sufferers were like Nicklinson.

One can easily understand what might have been the young man’s concerns. If people think that all locked-in sufferers are desperate to die, then perhaps he won’t get the kind of care he would need to live if there were ever a medical emergency. Perhaps he simply wanted people to know that he wasn’t down in the dumps about his accident.

His motivation for speaking out was unclear but nonetheless poignant and timely. I doubt that people like Nicklinson would have considered the effect that their public cause would have on others with the same condition. Their focus is essentially on themselves. Understandable given the circumstances; but nevertheless, not the complete picture.

It is not the illness or the prognosis that is the driver for euthanasia in any of these cases. It has more to do with the person themselves and how they decide to cope with their pending or existing situation. It really is about their choices.

A few months back, another MND sufferer, Paul Chamberlain, became a cause celebre for the assisted suicide campaign in the UK. He was interviewed repeatedly on British media including a joint interview with Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition – Europe. Once again we find the counter position put by other MND sufferers including former Springbok Rugby player, Joost van der Westhuizen.

“It's been a rollercoaster from day one and I know I'm on a deathbed from now on. I've had my highs and I have had my lows, but no more... It's only when you go through what I am going through that you understand that life is generous.”

Then there’s the story of Alistair Banks. Throughout his MND and up unto his death he wrote inspiring messages of hope. He said:

“Everyone I know with MND is trying to do positive things, otherwise they would sink into despair. It's a coping mechanism. Doing things means that you can pull in friends and family to share something both fun and rewarding.”

I have no doubt that some people die better than others, just as people deal with the dying and death of a loved one in many different ways. But these are not arguments for euthanasia. Rather, they suggest that we need to continue to learn better ways of caring and to make sure that quality care is universally available.

Autonomy is a good thing, but should we burden society with a euthanasia or assisted suicide law because some people – probably only a handful in any disease cohort – wish to choose another path? We may have decriminalised suicide, but we should never endorse it. All of humanity is diminished by a law that tells us that some people’s lives are less worthy of life than others. No man is an island.

The heart-wrenching stories of a few are compelling. But as arguments they are false.

UK judges reject euthanasia but rule that more clarity is needed on assisted suicide prosecution guidelines.

A concerning decision in the UK, last July, unanimously upheld the prohibition on euthanasia but found in a 2 to 1 decision that more clarity was needed by the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines in the UK.

 The case in the UK brought to the courts by a man known as "Martin" the judges found (2 to 1 decision) that the prosecution guidelines in the UK concerning assisted suicide needed more clarity. The UK Telegraph reported:

In a landmark case brought by a man living with locked-in syndrome, two Court of Appeal judges agreed it was currently unclear whether doctors and others would be brought before the courts for assisting a suicide and said it should be “spelt out unambiguously”.

In a similar case, all three judges rejected the Nicklinson challenge on the prohibition of euthanasia. Euthanasia is an act of homicide.

The Telegraph reported the decision as saying:

It is a serious criminal offence to assist someone to take their own life, but DPP guidance makes clear that friends or family members are unlikely to be prosecuted for assisting a loved one’s suicide. 

Their position was clarified following a case brought by Debbie Purdy, in 2009. Purdy lives with multiple sclerosis. 

Martin’s lawyers argued that similar clarity was not available to others, such as doctors, nurses, carers or social workers, who may be called upon to assist a suicide.

Opponents of assisted suicide warned it was a worrying development, however.

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, said: “Why is it that when an able-bodied person wants to commit suicide we try to talk them out of it and offer them support, but when a disabled person wants to commit suicide we focus on how we can make that possible? 

“It is no surprise disabled people feel many people think their lives are worthless and that they are a burden.” 

Care Not Killing also said it was “concerned” by the judgement.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it was seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: ‘We tinker with assisted suicide laws at our peril’

The following article was written by John Bingham and published on December 15 in the Telegraph UK. Link to the original article.

Baroness Butler-Sloss

One of Britain’s most eminent authorities on end-of-life law has issued a warning against “tinkering” with assisted suicide on the eve of a landmark Supreme Court challenge.

Baroness Butler-Sloss, the former President of the High Court Family Division, argued that the current law strikes a careful balance between justice and mercy, adding: “We tinker with it at our peril”.

Relaxing the law to allow assisted suicide in certain circumstances would turn a long-established legal boundary into nothing more than a weak “line in the sand”, she insisted.

Her warning, in an article in The Sunday Telegraph, will be seen as a message to some of Britain’s most senior judges, who will begin hearing an attempt to introduce a right to die under human rights legislation.

A full panel of nine Supreme Court Justices, headed by Lord Neuberger, the court's President, will convene tomorrow to hear the culmination of three separate legal challenges to the current ban, stretching back five years.

Jane Nicklinson, the widow of Tony Nicklinson, the "locked-in syndrome" sufferer who died last year, is joining two severely disabled men to sweep aside a prohibition on assisted suicide contained in the Suicide Act, using human rights laws.

The case relies on legal arguments developed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former Labour lord chancellor who chaired an unofficial commission on assisted suicide last year.

A private member’s bill, drawn up by Lord Falconer, to introduce a form of so-called “assisted dying” modelled on a system in place in the US state of Oregon, is expected to be debated by the Lords next spring.

But Lady Butler-Sloss dismissed a package of legal safeguards in it as “doubtful” arguing that they might suit a “small number of strong-minded individuals who are resolved to end their lives” but leave many others at risk.

As the country’s most senior family judge, Lady Butler-Sloss, ruled in 2002 that a woman paralysed from the neck down could have medical treatment withdrawn and die peacefully in accordance with her wishes.

She gave her ruling after visiting the women, known only as “Miss B”, at her bedside, later praising her for her “great courage, strength of will and determination”.

But unlike the case of Miss B, who wanted medical treatment withdrawn, allowing doctors or others to give active assistance to people to end their lives would cross a vital legal boundary, she argued.

“Laws, like nation states, are more secure when their boundaries rest on natural frontiers,” she writes.

“The law that we have rests on just such a frontier. It rests on the principle that we do not involve ourselves in deliberately bringing about the deaths of others.

“Once we start making exceptions based on arbitrary criteria like terminal illness, that frontier becomes just a line in the sand, easily crossed and hard to defend. The law is there to protect us all.

“We tinker with it at our peril.”

Disability rights leaders fear the Martin assisted suicide court ruling (UK) might lead to euthanasia

The following article was originally published by the Disability News Service in the UK on August 1, 2013. Link to the original article.

Disability News Service - August 1, 2013

A new court of appeal ruling on assisted suicide has alarmed disabled activists, who fear it could “let the genie out of the bottle” by relaxing laws on euthanasia.

Senior court of appeal judges decided by a majority of two to one that the director of public prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer, should publish guidance explaining the circumstances in which a healthcare professional can help a disabled man to die without risking prosecution.

Starmer immediately said he would seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Kevin Fitzpatrick

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, of the disabled people’s organisation Not Dead Yet UK, which campaigns against legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide, said such guidance risked a “radical shift” towards the kind of pro-euthanasia culture that exists in the Netherlands and Belgium.

He said such a shift would be “catastrophic” for disabled people and vulnerable older people, who could feel pressured to take the euthanasia option “because it is validated by the medical profession”.

Fitzpatrick said new guidance would “open the door to abuse”, and he warned that as soon as you told a professional that it was allowable in law to help to kill someone, “the genie is out of the bottle”.

He pointed to the speed with which the “well-intentioned” Liverpool Care Pathway – which was intended to lay out palliative care options for patients in the final hours or days of their lives – degenerated into “misuse and abuse”.

And he warned that members of the pro-euthanasia lobby – who believe it is ok to view disabled people and vulnerable older people as “candidates for elimination” – were slowly “chipping away” at the law on assisted suicide.

The disabled man who brought the case, known as Martin, is virtually unable to move following a stroke, and would only be able to end his life with the assistance of a third party.

He wants to travel to die at the notorious Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, but his wife does not wish to assist him, so he wants to enlist the help of a care worker, healthcare professional, or a volunteer from a pro-euthanasia group.

Martin’s lawyers said the existing assisted suicide guidelines issued by the DPP – following the successful court action by Debbie Purdy in July 2009 – offered sufficient “clarity” for friends or relatives who helped someone to die, but were not clear enough for those with no emotional ties to the person who wanted to die, such as healthcare professionals.

Lord Judge

Lord Dyson, the master of the rolls, and Lord Justice Elias, in their majority judgment, said it would be “constitutionally improper” for the DPP to guarantee immunity from prosecution for any class of “helpers”, but it was not impossible or impractical to improve the guidance as it related to healthcare professionals and other helpers.

But the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, in disagreeing with his two colleagues, said he believed the policy was already “sufficiently clear to enable Martin, or anyone who assists him, to make an informed decision about the likelihood of prosecution”.

The same three judges unanimously dismissed appeals by Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb, who had both challenged the legal ban on voluntary euthanasia.

Nicklinson is continuing the legal battle begun by her husband, Tony, who refused nutrition, fluids and medical treatment after the high court dismissed his case last year. He died less than a week later. Nicklinson had wanted the law to be changed so that a doctor could end his life without facing a murder charge.

Paul Lamb, who was almost completely paralysed after a car crash, is seeking the same change in the law as Nicklinson.

Lord Judge said assisted suicide law “cannot be changed” by judges, and that “if the law is to be changed, it must be changed by parliament”.

Lamb and Nicklinson will also take their fight to the Supreme Court.

An analysis of the Nicklinson euthanasia decision by the British Court of Appeal.

Alex Schadenberg

By Alex Schadenberg

International Chair - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

On July 31, 2013, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Britain decided in the Nicklinson case that no exception would be created to the homicide (euthanasia) or assisted suicide Acts, that no defense of “necessity” exists within the homicide or assisted suicide Acts, and that only parliament can decide to change the law in relation to euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. The court did decide in a limited manner in favour of 'Martin' by deciding that the Director of Public Prosecutions is to provide further clarification concerning the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines.

The first two plaintiffs in the case involve Tony Nicklinson (deceased) represented by his wife Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb. Both plaintiffs asked the court to create an exception to the Homicide Act to allow someone to cause their death (euthanasia). They argued that there is a defense of “necessity” that allows the court to create an exception to murder and thus legalize euthanasia in the UK.

The third plaintiff, ‘Martin,’ was seeking death by assisted suicide. 'Martin' may be planning to go to Switzerland to die by assisted suicide at the Dignitas suicide clinic. He sought a further clarification to the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines to assure a person who accompanies him to Switzerland for assisted suicide would not be prosecuted.

The interveners in the case were: the Ministry of Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General, the Care Not Killing Alliance, the British Humanist Association, and A Primary Care Trust.

The Appeals Court decided:

In our view, this submission that the common law should recognise a defence of necessity to apply to certain cases of euthanasia is wholly unsustainable for a variety of reasons. (section 54)

1. It cannot be held that the values of autonomy and dignity supercede the sanctity of human life (section 54). 

2. There is no right to suicide. The law provides immunity for those who kill themselves but does not confer a right to suicide. If there is no right to kill yourself, then there is no right to have someone assist you to die or to kill you (section 55). 

3. It is not appropriate for the court to fashion a defense of necessity in such a complex and controversial field; this is a matter for parliament (section 56).

Parliament

The court agreed, (in section 60), that only the parliament has the power to change the law:

Parliament as the conscience of the nation is the appropriate constitutional forum, not judges who might be influenced by their own particular moral perspectives; the judicial process which has to focus on the particular facts and circumstances before the court is not one which is suited to enabling the judges to deal competently with the range of conflicting considerations and procedural requirements which a proper regulation of the field may require; and there is a danger that any particular judicial decision, influenced perhaps by particular sympathy for an individual claimant, may have unforeseen consequences, creating an unfortunate precedent binding in other contexts.

The plaintiffs argued that there is no distinction between withholding or withdrawing treatment that is certain to cause death and actively causing death. They argued that since it is lawful to withhold or withdraw medical treatment, when death is certain, then it should also be lawful to intentionally cause the death of the same person. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs and responded in section 61:

“However, these judges recognised that this is a distinction deeply rooted in English law…  Moreover, as we have seen, not everyone considers that the distinction is irrational and unjustified.”

The court expressed their decision, (in section 66) with the following quote:

First, as we have noted, there is no right - let alone a fundamental right - to commit suicide, and the right to assist someone to do so cannot place the party providing assistance in a stronger position than the party committing suicide. Second, section 2(2) of the Suicide Act is not ambiguous, nor is it cast in general terms. There is no scope for giving it a limited interpretation. There is no conceivable risk that Parliament may not have understood the full implications of a blanket ban, or that the problems of those unable to commit suicide have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. On the contrary, Parliament fully understood what a blanket ban meant and why they were imposing it. They have on numerous occasions considered specific proposals for change but have so far chosen not to accede to them. The principle of legality can gain no hold here. This difficulty alone is in our view decisive of this submission. If a defence of necessity cannot be fashioned for assisted suicide, it certainly cannot for euthanasia.

The court examined the question of the current prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide in the UK. The court states in section 74:

"a terminally ill or dying person's wish to die never constitutes any legal claim to die at the hand of another person... 

and it added that it could not constitute legal justification for someone else to bring about that person's death.”

Considering the purpose of a blanket ban to euthanasia and assisted suicide the court recognized in section 74 the potential threat to vulnerable people by stating:

"We are also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. We accept that, for the most part, requests resulting from such pressure or from remediable depressive illness would be identified as such by doctors and managed appropriately. Nevertheless we believe that the message which society sends to vulnerable and disadvantaged people should not, however obliquely, encourage them to seek death, but should assure them of our care and support in life." 

 It is not hard to imagine that an elderly person, in the absence of any pressure, might opt for a premature end to life if that were available, not from a desire to die or a willingness to stop living, but from a desire to stop being a burden to others.

The court therefore agreed with the previous decision, by the House of Lords in Purdy, that a blanket ban was “amply justified” and proportionate.

In section 78 the court outlines its concern related to the possible threat to vulnerable people if euthanasia and/or assisted suicide were legalized. The court stated:

“The more serious the harm involved the more heavily will weigh in the balance considerations of public health and safety against the countervailing principle of personal autonomy. The law in issue in this case, section 2 of the 1961 Act, was designed to safeguard life by protecting the weak and vulnerable and especially those who are not in a condition to take informed decisions against acts intended to end life or to assist in ending life. Doubtless the condition of terminally ill individuals will vary. But many will be vulnerable and it is the vulnerability of the class which provides the rationale for the law in question. It is primarily for States to assess the risk and the likely incidence of abuse if the general prohibition on assisted suicides were relaxed or if exceptions were to be created. 

Clear risks of abuse do exist, notwithstanding arguments as to the possibility of safeguards and protective procedures."

After deciding that the blanket ban on assisted suicide is justified the court considered the question that “Martin” placed before the court, that being the level of clarity that the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines provide.

The court considered the House of Lords decision in Purdy, a case that sought to clarify if a person who travels with someone to Switzerland for assisted suicide would be prosecuted. In response to the Purdy decision, the Director of Public Prosecutions published prosecution guidelines with respect to assisted suicide.

In assessing the prosecution guidelines, the court examined what they referred to as: 

Class 1 cases: A person with emotional connections with nothing to gain travels with the person to Switzerland for assisted suicide.Class 2 cases:  A Person with no emotional connections who assist a person to commit suicide or go to Switzerland for assisted suicide with some financial or other gain.

The court assessed the prosecution guidelines and determines in section (138) that:

“a person who is considering providing assistance to a victim to commit suicide is able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable and adequate in the circumstances, the consequences of providing such assistance.”

The court then, in section 140 determines that Class 1 cases are sufficiently defined and limits the requirement to clarify the prosecution guidelines to Class 2 cases.

The Lord Chief Justice dissented on the decision to require the Director of Public Prosecutions to provide further clarity on the assisted suicide prosecution guidelines. Chief Justice Toulson argued that further clarity in the prosecution guidelines might cross the constitutional boundary, whereby the prosecution guidelines become similar to legislation.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has informed the court that he would be appealing this part of the decision to the Supreme Court.

The court concluded there full decision by stating in section 149:

We would therefore dismiss the appeals of Mrs Nicklinson and Paul Lamb. We would uphold Martin's complaint that the Policy of the DPP fails to provide sufficient clarity as to the DPP's prosecution Policy with respect to those persons who fall into what we have termed the class 2 category.

Dr Andrew Fergusson

The Dr. Andrew Fergusson of the Care Not Killing Alliance responded to the decision of the Court of Appeal with the following statement:

 The judgment comprehensively and completely dismissed these appeals, which sought to alter legislation covering murder. 

"All three judges strongly rejected the notion that 'necessity' should be a defence in euthanasia cases, saying this was not compatible with English Law. Further, the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide in the UK is not contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights." 

"The judges, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson and Lord Justice Elias, recognised that changing the laws on murder and suicide are matters for Parliament alone. They acknowledged that these issues had been debated by Parliament frequently in recent years." 

"And they confirmed the simple truth that the current law exists to protect the vulnerable and those without a voice: disabled people, terminally ill people and elderly people, who might otherwise feel pressured into ending their lives."  

"Two of the three judges concluded that the DPP should issue some very minor clarification to the prosecution guidelines covering assisted suicide for 'class two cases' requiring the involvement of a health professional. We were persuaded by the dissenting opinion from the UK's most senior judge that change was unnecessary and unhelpful, but, importantly, this clarification does not change the current law."

The Nicklinson decision establishes strong precedents, in Common Law, for the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn the Carter decision by Justice Smith in British Columbia Canada.

Smith decided that the court could decide public policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide even though the Canadian parliament had recently considered the issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide when it defeated Bill 384 by a vote of 228 to 59 in April 2010.

This court decision found that parliament has the sole right to make laws related to important public issues such as euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Smith decided that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing treatment with the likelihood that death will occur and intentionally causing death by deliberate means.

This court decision found that the difference between killing and letting die is a well established common law principle.

Smith decided that since suicide was not illegal therefore assisted suicide should also not be illegal.

This court found that there is no right to suicide and therefore no right to euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Smith decided that since some people are incapable of committing suicide or dying by assisted suicide, therefore a limited form of euthanasia should be legal.

 This court found that since there is not right to kill yourself therefore there cannot be a right to have someone else kill you.

It is interesting that Robert Latimer argued that he had a 'defense of necessity' when he killed his daughter Tracy in 1993. The Supreme Court of Canada also rejected this argument.

This decision by the Court of Appeal in Britain is the second recent common law decision in the past few months to come to a similar conclusion. Recently the Irish Supreme Court made a similar decision in the Fleming decision.

I expect that the Nicklinson decision by the Court of Appeal in Britain will be appealed to the Supreme Court. We already know that the Director of Public Prosecutions is appealing the 'Martin' part of the decision.

I also expect that the Nicklinson decision will be considered when the Supreme Court of Canada hears the appeal of the Carter case.

Link to the legal decision.

Links to other recent similar articles:
- British Court of Appeal upholds lower court ruling protecting people from euthanasia.
- Irish Supreme Court upholds protections in law from assisted suicide.
- UK lower court rejects euthanasia cases, Nicklinson case.
- Responding to the disturbing decision by Justice Smith in the Carter case.