´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

Assisted suicide: to prosecute or not to prosecute?

Post categories: ,Ìý,Ìý

William Crawley | 11:58 UK time, Thursday, 24 September 2009

suicide.jpgYesterday, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, Sir Alasdair Fraser, issued his and urged the people of Northern Ireland to respond to a 12-week consultation on public interest factors in favour of prosecution and those against prosecution for this offence. The guidance is essentially the same as the interim policy issued yesterday by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales.

Prosecution services hope the guidelines will inform the public about the factors they will take into consideration in determining whether to prosecute in cases of assisted suicide. In essence, what is being proposed is that people will not be prosecuted unless they stand to gain from the death of those they assisted, or if there is evidence that they encouraged someone to take their own life, or if the 'victim' was legally unable to give consent to their actions. Full details below the fold.


The Prosecution services say the public interest factors that favour a prosecution are these:

1) The victim was under 18 years of age.
2) The victim's capacity to reach an informed decision was adversely affected by a recognised mental illness or learning difficulty.
3) The victim did not have a clear, settled and informed wish to commit suicide; for example, the victim's history suggests that his or her wish to commit suicide was temporary or subject to change.
4) The victim did not indicate unequivocally to the suspect that he or she wished to commit suicide.
5) The victim did not ask personally on his or her own initiative for the assistance of the suspect.
6) The victim did not have a terminal illness; or a severe and incurable physical disability; or a severe degenerative physical condition; from which there was no possibility of recovery.
7) The suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that they or a person closely connected to them stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim.
8) The suspect persuaded, pressured or maliciously encouraged the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide, or exercised improper influence in the victim's decision to do so; and did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person did not do so.
9) The victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance him or herself.
10) The suspect was not the spouse, partner or a close relative or a close personal friend of the victim.
11) The suspect was unknown to the victim and assisted by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication, to the victim to assist him or her in committing suicide.
12) The suspect gave assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other.
13) The suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for their assistance.
14) The suspect was paid to care for the victim in a care/nursing home environment.
15) The suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present.
16) The suspect was a member of an organisation or group, the principal purpose of which is to provide a physical environment (whether for payment or not) in which to allow another to commit suicide.

(In most cases, factors (1) to (8) above will carry more weight than the other factors in deciding that a prosecution is required in the public interest.)

The public interest factors against prosecution are these:

1) The victim had a clear, settled and informed wish to commit suicide.
2) The victim indicated unequivocally to the suspect that he or she wished to commit suicide.
3) The victim asked personally on his or her own initiative for the assistance of the suspect.
4) The victim had:
a. a terminal illness; or
b. a severe and incurable physical disability; or
c. a severe degenerative physical condition;
from which there was no possibility of recovery.
5) The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion.
6) The suspect was the spouse, partner or a close relative or a close personal friend of the victim, within the context of a long-term and supportive relationship.
7) The actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the offence, were of only minor assistance or influence, or the assistance which the suspect provided was as a consequence of their usual lawful employment.
8) The victim was physically unable to undertake the act that constituted the assistance him or herself.
9) The suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in their suicide.
10) The victim has considered and pursued to a reasonable extent recognised treatment and care options.
11) The victim had previously attempted to commit suicide and was likely to try to do so again.
12) The actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide.
13) The suspect fully assisted the police in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing assistance.

(In most cases, factors 1) to 7) above will carry more weight than the other factors in deciding that a prosecution is not required in the public interest.)

Campaigners for the legalisation of assisted suicide may consider these guidelines a step in the right direction, but others disagree.

The Executive Director, Andrea Williams, gave this response:

'Our hearts of course go out to elderly and unwell people who are suffering from horrible medical conditions and to their loved ones. But we believe that all life should be protected in law and that the guidelines published today will cause great harm to individuals and society. We should learn from other jurisdictions where assisted suicide has been legalised. Very soon, elderly and vulnerable people surveyed by researchers report a shift in perception towards feeling a burden on their families and a growing sense of being under a 'duty to die'. Additionally, we are concerned that the system will be open to abuse and to a creeping, ever-widening application, which has been observed in previous cases in our own legal history where laws have been injudiciously liberalised. We shall do all we can to raise awareness of these underestimated factors in the run up to the consultation. In other jurisdictions similar laws have soon been abandoned when the damage becomes evident, but only after that damage has been done. We would rather we turned back from this well-meant but, in our view profoundly mistaken policy before that is allowed to happen'


Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Britain is no longer a Christian country.

    The ethos now is humanistic.

    On that basis anything goes, or can be argued for strenuously.

  • Comment number 2.

    It is yet another disgraceful usurption of the role of legislators by judges and officials. The only criteria for prosecuting someone for something that is clearly a crime should be the evidence and probability of a conviction. Then the jury determines guilt or innocence and the judge the appropriate sentence. This process proposed transfers the powers of legislature, jury and judge into the office of the DPP.

    Imagine if the DPP started publishing guidelines on all crimes - we won't prosecute you for theft if you're a single mum, or murder if you killed your husband.

  • Comment number 3.

    Murder liberalised!

  • Comment number 4.

    No-one could minimise the trauma of those who are terminally ill, or the emotional agony of family and friends looking on. As a pastor, I have had to observe such sad situations at close quarters.

    However, there are very clear reasons why no Christian could ever agree with assisted suicide:

    1. Our lives belong to God: it is for Him to decide when our time on earth is done.

    2. In Scripture several people asked God that their lives should end - in none of those cases was that prayer answered.

    3. Christians know that death is not the end of existence - we will all live forever somewhere. One question that demands an answer is therefore "If I bring my loved one's life to an end, where am I sending them to?" Why are we afraid to address this vital issue?

  • Comment number 5.

    Pastorphilip:

    1. Our lives do not 'belong' to a god, or to anyone. We did not ask to be born, but at least we can ask to die at a time of our choosing. This is not 'murder' but personal autonomy liberalised. It gives the opportunity to have the highest possible quality of life even in death. Andrea Williams is wrong: the guidelines will benefit individuals and society. They will ease suffering and testify to our humanity.

    2. I shall be godlike and refuse to reply to this omniscient observation of the mind of God. But why shouldn't God want us to die sooner rather than later, if point 3 is correct?

    3. Christians 'know' that death is not the end of existence? The thought that we might live forever somewhere sounds like a definition of hell. Oh, I realise you 'know' it will be hell for me. But what will it be for you? Lying on a beach under a palm tree drinking rum and coke with a gorgeous blond? Forever? Will the leaves never wilt, or the rum and coke go off? Will Brigitte Bardot never acquire wrinkles (like the ones she has)? Or will it be a communion of souls 'floating' in the ether?

Ìý

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.