While the National Conference of the Labor Party has been protecting the sanctity of other people’s marriages (a topic for another day, perhaps), the House of Lords in the UK has been grappling with the complexities of helping one’s loved one board the plane to Switzerland. The case is called R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions.

Debbie Purdy after her court victory on assisted suicide.

Under the Suicide Act 1961, suicide is not illegal in England. However, the piece of legislation makes it a criminal offence to assist another to take their own life.

But assisted suicide is not an offence in Switzerland.

115 people were noted by the Court to have travelled from England and Wales to countries where assisted suicide was not illegal.

Debbie Purdy suffers from progressive multiple sclerosis for which there is no known cure. She has lost her mobility and the ability to do many things for herself. She has choking fits when she drinks. Her condition is and will continue to get worse.

She wants to be able to die at a time of her choosing and on her own terms. She is concerned, however, that when she decides that it is time, she will be unable to travel unassisted to a Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. She is also concerned not to place the husband who helps her to achieve her objective of a death on her own terms in danger of prosecution. She does not want her husband to be prosecuted for providing her with assistance in England to die in Switzerland. The mere action of helping her on the plane and of travelling with her, potentially, amounts to the crime of assisting suicide even if the death occurs and is legal in another country.

Her case relied on the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention preserves the right to respect for one’s private and family life. The Court held that choosing the nature of one’s last moments is as much a part of one’s private life as any other.

However, the Convention permits interference with the exercise of that right provide the interference is in accordance with the law and provided it meets a number of other criteria which were not in issue in the case.

Since it was a statute that made assisting suicide an offence (carrying a maximum of 14 years imprisonment), one might well think that the interference was in accord with the law. There is, however, a curious caveat to the 1961 Act: prosecution for the offence of assisting suicide can not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The argument made by Purdy, and upheld by the House of Lords, was that unless the DPP set out the circumstances in which the discretion to prosecute would be exercised, no one could know whether their action in helping a loved one take their own life would be treated as criminal and result in prosecution - or whether the same action would be regarded as appropriate and protected from punishment.

This meant Purdy’s right to live and die in her own way was not being affected in accord with the law but with an unaccountable and non-transparent discretion of an official – the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In the absence of a clear statement of the factors which would be taken into account in deciding whether or not a prosecution would occur, the law against assisting suicide was in breach of article 8 of the convention and its protection of the right to respect for one’s private and family life.

The House of Lords ordered the DPP to put together a policy identifying the facts and circumstances which he will take into account in deciding, in a case like Purdy’s, whether or not to consent to a prosecution for assisting suicide. 

Australians do not have access to the European Convention of Human Rights. The precise legal question as arose in Ms. Purdy’s case will not, therefore, arise in Australia as the law presently stands. That does not mean, however, that the underlying issues can be ignored. As Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood said:
   
“I seriously question whether one should always deprecate conduct criminalised by s.2(1) [assisting suicide]. Of course it is wrong-often terribly wrong-to assist in the suicide of one who is not mentally competent or not clearly fixed in their intention or who may feel under pressure to end their life for the benefit of others … assistance in those kinds of situations is clearly to be condemned. But suppose, say, a loved one, in desperate and deteriorating circumstances, who regards the future with dread and has made a fully informed, voluntary and fixed decision to die, needing another’s compassionate help and support to achieve that end… Are there not cases in which … might regard such conduct as, if anything, to be commended rather than condemned?” 

As the population ages and the ability to keep people alive expands, these issues will not disappear. They will simply occur more frequently and in lives and in families close to each one of us. Each one of us will know a Debbie Purdy.

Many of us will be a Debbie Purdy.

We should face up to and grapple with these issues before, for each of us, it is too late.

8 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • John Passant says:

      06:43am | 07/08/09

      I published an article on this on my blog too.  It takes a more poltical view that the Left should support assisted suicide but also fight for a better life for all in the here and now.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:34am | 07/08/09

      Australia already had voluntary euthansia in the Northern Territory until the legislation was overridden by Federal Government. Just idiot Howard’s contribution to the non debate…

    • iansand says:

      08:44am | 07/08/09

      The problem evaporates if we ignore the views of ratbag (mostly) religious nutters who think something going on inside their brain makes their version of morality superior to that of everybody else.

    • watty says:

      09:37am | 07/08/09

      Shane I hate to destroy your nearly morning anti Howard rant but the vote in the House of Representatives to repeal the Northern Territory legislation was 88/35 in favour of scrapping the N.T. Legislation.

    • pete says:

      10:27am | 07/08/09

      Watty ,

      You have raised another issue. Why is it rthat residentsof the NT and ACT are treated like second rate citizens?  I cannot speak for the NT, but in the ACT we had a couple of referendums asking us to vote on whether or not we wanted self government.  both times it was a resounding no, so the federal govt of the day gave it to us anyway.

      Here’s the rub,  they gave us self determination we have our own assembly and everything, but if the assembly members elected by the residents of the ACT, passes a law in the ACT assembly that the federal government finds politically unpalatable they override, veto it or advise the governor general that they should not sign it.

      Both Howard and Rudd have done it  

      So residents in the Territories definitely do not have the same “state” rights as citizens in the rest of Australia and it is high time that issue was addressed

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:34pm | 07/08/09

      @Watty- It could have easily been an early morning rant at that idiot and Howard clone Kevin Rudd- their policies are mostly similar.  By what moral right does the federal parliament have to overide the legislation of the state or territory legislature? I know what legal right they use- the section of the constitution dealing with foreign affairs, which gives them the ability to override state legislation on virtually anything given australia has treaties on environment, human rights, trade, labor agreements, defence etc.

    • watty says:

      04:16pm | 07/08/09

      Shane and Pete you have asked questions near to my heart.

      The N.T was used as the test laboratory for the Aboriginal Land Rights (N.T.) Act 1976 by Fraser and the Federal Government.
      No other State or Territory would have a bar of the conditions laid down in this Act but the Territory was not allowed to amend this Act even under “self Government”

      The mining of uranium had the blessing of the N.T Government but was stopped dead by the Feds.From memory the opening of any further uranium mines was part of Fraser’s agreement to allow “Self Government”.

      The mining of uranium was kep

    • peter says:

      08:20pm | 30/06/11

      So much for peoples rights to self determination.
      Cheers
      peter

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

New post: Gina Rinehart earns $50m a day - but she's not the most interesting thing on BRW's List: http://t.co/ftrlKepj

Lucy Kippist

RT @BreakfastNews: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook being sued for not sharing enough - http://t.co/gF8nSnLr

Anthony Sharwood

RT @gregprichard: The Victorian Sports Minister has just sent the New Zealand Prime Minister a commiserative email. #stateoforigin

Anthony Sharwood

@VanillathunderV fair comeback. But seriously, if that was a try then I'll book my skiing in Queensland this year

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

Lying on a cold table in an unfamiliar place and undergoing a core biopsy was probably one of the most…

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

Red alert, ladies. Making jokes about your ability at work is not funny particularly at board level.…

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

Punishing the baddies is only fun in the movies. In real life it’s messy, expensive, and fraught…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

242 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter