Following the 50th anniversary of the decriminalisation of suicide, the theme of the premature ending of a human life by their hand still manages to cause an intense level of scrutiny and debate. The issue of euthanasia causes a great deal of controversy from both ends of the spectrum, supporting and opposing the issue. However has society moved forward in its understanding of human life and how it can be compromised in an instant and must be allowed to be up to the individual to decide whether they want to continue a “half-life” or not, or does it still possess the mentality that all life is precious and should always be appreciated, no matter what the individual suffers through? Should a human being give consent to be murdered?
Currently the defence of consent can be successfully raised for all Non fatal offences against the person, up to and including Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) found under section 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act. However in recent years there has been the growing use of consent in a variety of situations which provide an exception, such as heavy contact sports such as boxing, social utility situations such as the T.V shows “Jackass” and “Dirty Sanchez” where Grievous Bodily Harm is regularly committed against between several human beings without being held criminally liable due to it providing entertainment to some. However there is yet to be, in this country, a successful use of the defence of consent for Murder.
Murder. By common law definition set out by Lord Coke in 1797, was stated as “the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being and under the Kings Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied”. So it is safe to assume that if another human being gives the other permission to kill them, it satisfies all the required elements of a murder, however there are cases over the years to challenge the word “unlawful” when the issue of consent is raised.
Back in 1969 the Courts stated in the case of Leach that a victim “could never consent to murder, no matter what the circumstances”. However given the circumstances of the case (The victim gave the defendant permission to crucify him on Hampstead Heath, fortunately the victim survived) it could be safe to assume the reason the wording of this ratio decidendi is so harsh. Under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, it is an offence to assist another in committing suicide. This is what was challenged in the case better known as “Pretty”. Diane Pretty - a motor neurone disease sufferer- applied to the courts for a judicial declaration that her husband would not be liable for murder should he help her commit suicide. The point of law which was attempted to be used for a judicial declaration was Article 2 of the European Convention ('right to life'). However it was refused under and the European Court of Human Rights stated that murder/assisted suicide would not be sanctioned under these circumstances, citing the reasons that article 2 was there to protect human life, and that assisted suicide would still amount to murder. The “right to life” article seemingly infringes on the right to end life. The irony is seemingly lost upon the court.
However there are situations when a person is killed following an act of another. Although it is not a positive act (i.e., the act of injecting excessive morphine, or crucifying in Leach) the act of omitting to do something, which causes a death, has been proven to be allowed under medical professionals, with medical professionals being able to withhold the right to resuscitate patients who show no signs of improving, and who are in a desperate state. These experts in their field know that it is right to allow the patient to cease their suffering, so they omit medical treatment and the patient dies. Yet they are not liable for prosecution. However, this may be due to the point posed in a few sentences previously; it is an omission which fully allows the patient to pass away, not a positive act. This could make the key difference in separating a murderer from an acquitted medical professional
As stated before, there are a large number of opposition groups to the concept of euthanasia, including religions opposition. Christians believe that all life and death is gods will, and that it will be completed at his choice. Not humans. Muslims, the second biggest religious denomination, are also against euthanasia and have the similar belief that their God, Allah, is the one to judge how long a person will live, and that suicide and euthanasia is forbidden as no-one should contemplate suicide because “Surely Allah is ever merciful to you.” : Qur'an 4:29. This covers the opinions of the largest two religious groups in the United Kingdom, so it appears that a religious opposition will be ever-present in a debate over the legality in consent to murder.
Even without religion circling the debate there will always be the question of “Would euthanasia devalue human life?” Clearly this argument has substance behind it as the possibility of legal killing would allow room for more people to end their lives, almost on a whim. Setting a precedent to society that if there is a problem in your life, it is easy and relatively painless to end it. Devaluing human life is something which can provoke an emotion from even the coldest of hearts, and to the “reasonable and sober man” (a key term when talking about objectiveness) they would not wish to see a human life go to waste due to a legal way to allow another to kill them.
Currently, in Europe only two countries have euthanasia legalised, Netherlands and Switzerland, the latter of which is home to the Dignitas clinic, which specialises in assisted suicides using medical professionals. Outside Europe, America has slowly started to demonstrate an understanding on the issue of euthanasia with the case of Baxter v. Montana of 2009, where it was decided that despite it not being a right for a physician to aid in suicide, there was nothing in the federal law which made physician-aided suicide against public policy. This, in combination with the U.S cases of Washington vs. Glucksberg and Gonzales vs. Oregon state that physician aid in suicide attempts is not illegal. So even in the conservative states of Montana and Oregon euthanasia is being decriminalised (although there are substantial requirements for the medication to be prescribed and administered), yet Europe are still slow on the uptake in its refusal for reform.
Euthanasia bills have been drafted and attempted to be passed through the Scottish parliament. Known as the “Assisted Dying Bill” was brought forward by a Parkinson’s disease suffering SMP (Margo McDonald) under the official title of "End of Life Assistance Bill". However the bill, under intense opposition from the largest denomination in Scotland (The Church of Scotland) it was defeated in parliament 85 votes to 16.
However in 2009 one of the largest steps towards decriminalising assisted suicide was made after a series of legal challenges by Miss Debbie Purdy, a Multiple Sclerosis sufferer (MS is a degenerative illness which eventually results in a loss of walking ability for most sufferers) where the law on assisted dying was clarified. Assisting someone to die is still illegal, and will be investigated by the police, however, The decision to prosecute will be based on the nature of the victim’s illness as well as other factors, and discretion will be used in their handling of the case.
To sum up, the law on euthanasia is slowly developing to give it a more lenient outlook on someone who is asking for the assistance in dying, consent is still not able to be used fully as a defence however advances in the law means that day may be nearer than most think. As for assisted suicide clinics here in Britain, there could possibly be a number of guidelines which must be followed, such as the prognosis for the patients wanting their lives to be ended rather than suffer the pain of a long, drawn out death, or allowing their own bodies to become their prisons. However due to the amount of religious opposition, and the fact Britain is not a secular country means that we are not likely to expect a UK branch of Dignitas anytime soon.
The law on suicide has made terrific developments in the last 50 years. Here’s to the next 50.
