Kind Hearts and Coroners

I believe life has been given by God and belongs to God.

Later today the House of Lords is considering the Coroners and Justice Bill. The Bill, in clauses 49-51, seeks to amend the 1961 Suicide Act to clarify the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide in relation to the internet. Such online activity has become known as ‘suicide websites’. This is an important measure that should help the emotionally vulnerable, especially young people.

But the Bill also contains measures to relax existing laws on assisted suicide. This is a highly emotional and controversial issue. I have had more letters on this issue than possibly any other in recent years. I personally do not believe that the present law on assisted suicide needs changing. It is also clear to me that this Bill is not the best way to consider this highly complex subject.

I have colleagues in the Lords who believe the existing law should be relaxed. I have huge respect for them and do not doubt that their compassionate motives are sincere. However, I still oppose assisted suicide, having considered the views of medical and legal experts and those who work in the areas of disability rights and palliative care.

Central to the Biblical message is society’s duty of care towards the more vulnerable. The Bill does not offer sufficient protection against exploitation of the terminally ill. I accept there are a small number of people who have a genuine desire to end their lives when they want to. There have been high profile cases such as Dan James, 23, a promising rugby player who travelled to a suicide clinic in Switzerland to take his own life after being paralysed from the chest down during a training accident. There has also been much publicity over Debbie Purdy, 45, who was diagnosed with primary progressive multiple sclerosis in 1995 and can no longer walk. She wants to end her life in a Swiss clinic, but fears her husband will be charged on his return to the UK.

But I believe there are many more who would come under tremendous emotional pressure to at least consider suicide, so as to relieve the burden of their care from friends and family.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton has tabled amendment 173. This seeks to protect from prosecution those individuals who “encourage” or “assist” terminally ill people to travel to another country, where assisted suicide is lawful. The recent case of Debbie Purdy, which went before the High Court, is an example. But the amendment could cause more problems then it solves. It does not define “terminal illness” or “life expectancy” of the person seeking assisted suicide. I am also concerned that it does not require a psychiatric examination to determine “mental capacity”. The amendment does not, in any way, stop the potential abuse of a vulnerable person by an “independent witness” acting on behalf of unscrupulous relatives. When Man starts to depart from God’s principles he literally starts to tie himself in knots. This is a classic illustration of that.

I practised as a criminal lawyer and Judge for many years. The Crown Prosecution Service has discretion not to prosecute in such cases, if it were deemed not to be in the public interest. In fact the CPS have never prosecuted anyone in such a case. Whilst acting within certain principles, each case of assisted suicide must be looked at on its own individual circumstances. There must be a balance of the facts of the individual case, whilst ensuring there is proper protection in law for the vulnerable.

There are two other main amendments worth mentioning. Amendment 174 seeks, in certain circumstances, to allow assisted suicide in the UK. But there are flaws also with this amendment. It does not explain how a Coroner is to “investigate the circumstances” or is to be “satisfied” that an individual has come to a “free and settled wish”. It also does not consider the issue of informed consent.

Amendment 177 wishes to change the offence of assisted suicide from murder to manslaughter. But it does not explain how it may be determined that someone has been “moved by compassion”. Neither does it define “repeated requests” and who is to determine the mental state of someone who is “suffering unbearably”. The amendment is also silent as to the method of suicide chosen.

God has a purpose for every life and has set a time for death, when that purpose is fulfilled. The circumstances of life should be under God’s control, not ours.