In an astounding about face for the Crown Prosecution
Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders (pictured), has
today rewritten
her prosecution policy so that doctors can now be involved in assisting suicide
without fear of prosecution, provided they don't have a professional relationship with those they 'help' (See Daily Mail here and here, Daily Telegraph, Yahoo, Premier, CT, ES).
The move has not surprisingly been welcomed
by euthanasia campaigner Michael
Irwin, and will also be music to the ears of Philip
Nitschke.
Both Irwin and Nitschke are medical practitioners who have
become media celebrities through their high profile campaigning for the
legalisation of assisted suicide, and high profile assistance to those wanting to end their own lives.
Now it will be much easier for them to do so without a
backward glance.
Michael Irwin was found guilty
of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council in 2005 and
was struck off the medical register after admitting supplying sleeping
pills to help a friend kill himself. He now claims to have helped at least 25
people to die at the Dignitas facility in Switzerland.
Nitschke, who travels the world instructing people in how to
end their lives using barbiturate drugs and nitrogen, is currently being
investigated by police in every Australian state over his possible
role in nearly 20 deaths in the past three years.
Both men will now be able to sleep more easily in their beds
and to continue their activities in Britain with considerably more peace of
mind. And the DPP will no longer have to explain why she hasn't so far made moves to prosecute them.
Under the Suicide Act 1961, assisting or encouraging suicide
remains a crime attracting a custodial sentence of up to 14 years.
But in order to be prosecuted any given case must pass two
tests applied by the Crown Prosecution Service. The evidence test requires that there be enough evidence to bring a
successful prosecution. The public
interest test involves the application of 22
criteria, 16 making prosecution more likely and 6 making it less likely.
Up until now a suspect ‘acting in his or her capacity as a medical
doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer [whether for
payment or not]’ was more likely to be prosecuted.
But the DPP has now amended this criterion so that it only
applies if the victim was in his or her care.
In other words, it will not apply in the case of doctors like Irwin and Nitschke who are assisting the suicide of people who are not actually their own patients.
This is very concerning indeed. The Director of Public
Prosecutions is effectively at a stroke of her pen decriminalising assisted
suicide by doctors and other health care professionals as long as they don’t
have an existing professional care relationship with the patient.
This weakens the protections for sick and vulnerable people
and effectively gives a green signal to anyone in Europe wanting physician
assisted suicide that Britain is open for business. It also opens the door to a
Dignitas style death ‘clinic’ being set up in the UK.
Alison Saunders’ new guidance is an invitation to doctors who wish
to push the boundaries and assist people to kill
themselves to have free rein and go ahead.
The DPP’s job is actually to administer the law, not to usurp the democratic authority of
Parliament, which ironically (or was it by design?) is due to discuss this
issue in just a couple of weeks’ time.
The DPP has justified her position by reference to a highly
contentious statement by one of the judges in last
June’s Nicklinson/Lamb judgement in the Supreme Court.
But in so doing she has run roughshod over the original meaning of her own prosecution guidance.
The original
prosecution guidance, developed in 2010, made it abundantly clear that any
doctor or other health professional who assisted with a suicide was running the
risk of prosecution.
Furthermore the General
Medical Council (GMC) has warned that such doctors risk censure, including
being struck off the medical register (see details of DPP and GMC
guidelines here).
Medical defence
agencies have interpreted it in this same way in their advice to doctors and it
has provided a strong deterrent to doctors abusing their powers.
But now the DPP has
swept all of this aside with the mere stroke of a pen. In so doing she is acting
way beyond her brief by effectively decriminalising physician assisted suicide
by stealth.
When the guidelines were originally drafted by the former
DPP, Keir Starmer, they were made subject to lengthy and rigorous public
consultation.
But Alison Saunders, rather than fulfilling her duty of
upholding the law, has effectively chosen to rewrite it without apparently consulting anyone at all.
By doing this just weeks before Parliament is due to debate the
matter she is raising two fingers to British democracy.
In May 2012, the Solicitor General said
in a parliamentary debate that if ‘a future DPP overturned the guidelines,
(s)he would be judicially reviewed for behaving in a rather whimsical
way'.
I hope that such a judicial review will now indeed take
place.
But more than that I hope rather that the DPP will be forced
to go in front of Parliament to explain why she has rewritten the current law,
ignored the will of MPs and peers and put at risk the lives of many vulnerable
people in our country.
Wonderful news. Maybe a dignified death will be everyone's right before too long?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, those who believe they have a magical invisible friend called Jeebus keep on trying to make us suffer long, painful ends!
"Wonderful news. Maybe a dignified death will be everyone's right before too long?"
DeleteStalin Hitler and Mao thought it was a good idea also
NO no no. Promote better palliative care for all and all Doctors and Nurses trained in the exercise
DeleteThere is no monopoly of compassion in the pro-euthanasia case. Assisting the difficult passing of some tragic cases does not justify the fear caused to a far greater number of our vulnerable elderly....
ReplyDeleteOpinions for or against euthanasia are irrelevant. It's the principal that she took it upon herself to change the law that's the issue here.
ReplyDelete