BP0145254
1
BP0145254 ELSS Semester H1
“Provided that a person has capacity then the principle of sanctity of life must yield to
autonomous self-determination in respect of refusal of life-saving medical treatment. A
competent person’s refusal must be obeyed even if patently contrary to her own best
interests (as objectively assessed) and even if it is plain that an adverse outcome may
result”. This statement by Jo Samantha and Ash Samanta shows a clear perspective that
a competent person should have freedom to refuse any life-saving medical treatment and
that their decision should be respected and obeyed. This view evidently supports the
concept of assisted suicide. This essay will talk through the laws on assisted suicide
followed by for and against arguments for legalising it in England and Wales.
Assisted suicide is suicide effected with the assistance of another person, especially the
taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for a patient suffering from a terminal illness or
incurable condition
1
. Currently, the law on assisted suicide in England and Wales is stated
in Suicide Act 1961. This Act states that it is an offence by a person to encourage,
assisted or attempted suicide to another person and even if a person intended to do such
things
2
. It also says that it not necessary that the person stated above need not be known
to the defendant
3
and it is still a crime if the suicide didn’t occur
4
. Under s.2(1C) of the Act,
the person, accused of the offence referred above should be brought to a judicial trial for
serious charges, and if convicted he should be liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 14 years. It is not allowed to start any proceeding for this offence expect the
permission of Director of Public Prosecution
5
. Lastly, it also shows that if the defendant
arranges a person to commit this offence, he will be treated as if he have done it
6
. Thus, it
is apparent that it is a criminal offence to assist suicide in England.
Furthermore, there are some common-law cases which back up this legislation. A very
famous case of R(Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice
7
in which defendant suffered a stroke
that left him paralysed and he wanted to end his life, but he couldn’t do so without
assistance. As Suicide Act 1961 makes it illegal to assist suicide, Nicklinson fills a
declaration that it’s perfectly legal for a doctor to assist his suicide, citing the article 8 of
European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR)
8
. Thus, Supreme Court held that it
would be inappropriate to declare the Suicide Act incompatible with ECHR without giving
Parliament the opportunity to consider the position in the light of the case. This shows that
courts are reluctant to comment or declare anything as they believe that Parliament is
sovereign and requires them to contemplate this matter, thus, following the separation of
powers.
1
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/assisted_suicide
2
Suicide Act 1961; s.2(1)(a)(b)
3
Suicide Act 1961; s.2(1A)
4
Suicide Act 1961; s.2(1B)
5
Suicide Act 1961; s.2(4)
6
Suicide Act 1961; s.2A(1)
7
[2014] UKSC 38; [2015] AC 657
8
European Convention on Human Rights 1950, art 8, says everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life, his home, and his correspondence. It also says 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 wellbeing 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
BP0145254
Another case of Pretty v United Kingdom
9
shows that applicant (Pretty) was paralysed and
suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her
suicide and prevent him from prosecution later on. She stated that her rights under ECHR
had been infringed. Her appeal was dismissed saying that there was no interference with
her rights under ECHR and also held that DPP had no power to undertake that a crime yet
to be committed should be immune from prosecution. Her case was also dismissed by the
European Court of Human Rights. This also shows that courts have a very strict
interpretation of this legislation and it also evident that it is challenging and difficult to
convince courts in this subject matter.
One of the main challenges in front the judges in most of the assisted suicide cases is that
the rights under art. (8) of ECHR are violated and it is incompatible with the Suicide Act
1961. Both Pretty
10
and Nicklinson
11
argued on the same fact, but they were not
successful. However, in the case of R(Purdy) v DPP
12
a patient who suffered a debilitating
illness and wanted to travel to a country where assisted suicide was lawful to end her life
when it became utterly unbearable. She sought information in order to make an informed
decision about whether to ask for her husband’s assistance in doing so. The DPP had
declined to say what factors, other than the general factors contained in the Code of
Crown Prosecutors, would be considered in prosecuting her husband. So, there were two
challenges in front of the court in this case that art. (8) of ECHR was incompatible with
Suicide Act 1961 and that the DPP’s failure to provide accurate Code that breached the
consistency of law
13
. Therefore, it was clear by the Purdy’s Judgement that Lordship
favoured the appellant’s argument that the intrusion to her autonomy under art. (8) was
justified as it was not in accordance with the law as the DPP did not provide the full
complete instruction. Their judgment illustrated that court’ recognised the lack of
transparency and ambiguity which existed in the law in this area at that time. Although the
court recognised that it could not change the law, as this was a matter for Parliament, it
