header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 March 2009 / Julian Samiloff
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Life changing decisions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Julian Samiloff reflects on the battle for and against assisted suicide

Debbie Purdy has multiple sclerosis. As the disease progresses life may become so unbearable that she may wish to end her life. She fears that eventually the disease will rob her of the physical ability to do the act herself so that if she chooses suicide she will require assistance. However, assisted suicide is a criminal offence (Suicide Act 1961 (SA 1961), s 2(1)(4)) so that if anyone was to help her in any way they would risk liability and imprisonment; even helping Debbie Purdy to travel to a Swiss clinic where she would get lawful assistance to die would expose helpers to that liability, and, contemplating imprisonment for her husband was not an option for her.

Pretty
In a similar case, R (Pretty) v DPP (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) [2001] UKHL 61, [2002] 1 All ER 1, Diane Pretty claimed that if SA 1961, s 2 prevented her assisted suicide or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) undertaking not

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