header-logo header-logo

04 June 2009
Issue: 7372 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Lord Falconer backs Purdy on assisted suicide campaign

Use of independent witnesses will guard against undue influence on patients

Multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy is appealing to the House of Lords to clarify the law on assisted suicide and has been backed by the former lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, who was due to table an amendment in the House of Lords this week.

Purdy is seeking to ensure her husband will not be prosecuted if he travels with her to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland for an assisted suicide.

Currently, the offence of aiding and abetting suicide attracts a maximum punishment of 14 years in prison.

The courts have previously said that it is up to Parliament to change the law.

Lord Falconer’s proposed amendment, to the Coroners and Justice Bill, will exempt relatives from prosecution as long as two GPs have certified a patient is terminally ill, and the individual has declared their intentions before an independent witness.

Dr Peter Gooderham, a law tutor at Cardiff University and a former medical doctor, says: “Lord Falconer makes a strong point that while the DPP has so far refrained from prosecuting about 100 people in this context, most have had to undergo police interviews.

“There is potentially much to be gained from establishing a legal exception to s 2 of the Suicide Act for relatives who help severely ill patients to end their lives. Such an exception might perhaps be similar to the exception to criminal liability contained in the Abortion Act 1967.”

“It will be desirable to allow for doctors to be ‘conscientious objectors’, subject to General Medical Council guidance on this point. It would be necessary for ‘terminally ill’ to be carefully defined in order to avoid uncertainty and abuse. The proposed  further safeguard of using an independent witness to certify the patient’s intention is likely to help guard against the exercise of undue influence on the patient.”

Issue: 7372 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll