My Life, My Choice

The Times has a excellent report on the significance of the recent UK Supreme Court on assisted suicide which says that while the judges did not rule in favour of Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson, they did give a clear steer to the Westminster Parliament that the present situation may well be inconsistent with the Human Rights Act.

The logic being that so long as there are proper safeguards in place, there is (or was in Tony Nicklinson's case) no reason to believe that people such as Paul Lamb are not rational and  reasonable in seeking to end their lives, at a time of their own choosing.    

Now the current legal position is that UK citizens can travel abroad to a Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, for example, to 'die with dignity' and anyone who assists such a person to fulfil their last wishes cannot be prosecuted under UK law.

But what should people in the UK have to go to such lengths to 'die with dignity' rather than be able to do so in a place of their own choosing with the opportunity of easy access to both family and friends, and without all the expense and obvious problems of travelling to a foreign country.     

The notion that disable people are at risk from a change in the law is a ridiculous smokescreen by people whose real objection to assisted dying is a religious one - because their is no doubt in my mind that Paul Lamb and other like him are not remotely vulnerable and in that situation the law and the God brigade should not  stand in his way.

It's his life and his choice.

Relax assisted suicide ban, judges urge

Paul Lamb said after the ruling that it was disappointing but still a significant day Times photographer, David Bebber



By Frances Gibb - The Times

Parliament was urged to review its blanket ban on assisted suicide after Britain’s highest court questioned if the law was compatible with the Human Rights Act.

The Supreme Court justices stopped short of making their own ruling on whether the ban breached human rights, saying that it was for parliament to consider first.

However, a majority held that the court did have the power to make such a ruling, stating that arguments in favour of the present law were “by no means overwhelming”. The appeals of a paralysed former builder — and the widow of man who had locked-in syndrome — in their right-to-die campaign were thrown out by seven to two.

Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson, whose husband, Tony, died nearly two years ago, wanted the court to rule that disabled people or those unable to take their own lives should have the right to be helped to die with dignity. The court was asked to decide if a prohibition on assisted suicide in the Suicide Act 1961 was compatible with the right to respect for private and family life in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Five of the nine justices found that the court had the “constitutional authority” to declare that a prohibition on assisted suicide was incompatible with the right to private and family life, and two — Lady Hale and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard — would have issued that declaration.

The majority ruled, however, that it would be “inappropriate for a court to decide... before giving parliament the opportunity to consider the position”. In a summary read out by Lord Neuberger, president of the court, the justices also noted that “the interference with Mr Nicklinson’s and Mr Lamb’s article 8 rights is grave”.

The judges outlined how a relaxation of the law might work, accepting the risk to vulnerable people who might feel themselves a burden if the absolute ban were relaxed.

They proposed a system in which a judge or independent assessor would have to be satisfied that someone had a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to die and for his or her suicide to be organised in an open and professional way. That might give more protection than a system involving inquiries by the Director of Public Prosecutions after the event, they said.

Mr Lamb, 58, from Leeds, who was left paralysed from the neck down after a road accident more than 20 years ago, said: “It is a little disappointing — but it is still a significant day. I will keep on with this as long as I am able.”

Mrs Nicklinson, also 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, said: “ It is a very positive step. Parliament will have to discuss this. It puts them on the spot.”

Andrea Williams, of Christian Concern, said of the ruling: “This is good news for vulnerable people who would have been at risk if the attempt to weaken the law had been allowed. The murder law is there to set the highest priority on the importance and value of life and to protect it. Parliament needs to continue to resist the repeated attempts to legalise assisted suicide.”

Richard Hawkes, of the disability charity Scope, said: “Many disabled people will be reassured by this ruling. The current law against assisted suicide works. Many disabled people strongly oppose a change in the law.”

Popular posts from this blog

SNP - Conspiracy of Silence

LGB Rights - Hijacked By Intolerant Zealots!