header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 September 2009 / Seamus Burns
Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Compassionate clarity

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Seamus Burns commends the move towards greater transparency in assisted suicide cases

The unanimous and surprising ruling of the House of Lords in R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45, [2009] All ER (D) 335 (Jul) reignites the debate about whether assisted suicide should continue to be outlawed.

The decision requires the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to promulgate an offence-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances which he will take into account in deciding, in a case like Ms Purdy’s, whether or not to give his consent, by virtue of s 2 (4) of the Suicide Act 1961 (SA 1961) to a prosecution under SA 61, s 2 (1).

The judgment represents a significant personal victory for Debbie Purdy, supporting her argument that the existing law is insufficiently clear to enable her to accurately predict if her husband is likely to be prosecuted with assisting in her suicide, at some time in the future.
Debbie Purdy suffers from primary progressive multiple sclerosis and the progressive nature of the disease

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll