The demand for clarity on 'assisted dying' and the threat of prosecution continues

Current legal unrest suggests that the campaign for new ‘assisted dying’ laws in the UK could be gathering new momentum, since new guidelines, regarding how the actions of individuals should be judged in court, were issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer. Now the guidelines will face a legal challenge by a sufferer of ‘lock-in syndrome’, Tony Nicklinson, who since suffering a stroke is only able to move his eyes and head and strongly feels he should not be made to live an undignified life.

This challenge follows a previous legal battle which was won by multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, who was able to force a clarification of the law that stated, if she was helped in ending her life, that the assisting party would could only be charged with assisted suicide as opposed to murder. Tony Nicklinson is now demanding further clarification on the basis that, unlike Debbie Purdy, he is unable to take the final action to end his life.

It is undeniable that the issue of euthanasia has intensified since it became public knowledge that UK citizens, with extreme illnesses and degenerative conditions, have been able to end their lives in Switzerland, where the Dignitas clinic is legally able to assist individuals wishing to do so, provided they are found by psychiatrists to be of sound mind. Further to this, it was perhaps unavoidable that the issue was always going to heat up as the UK experiences an elderly population boom, with dignity in care and at the end-of-life being widely supported in the public consciousness as a reality our society needs to achieve.

UK lawmakers have, of course, always been against legalising assisted suicide, but despite strong opposition to a change in law found throughout the main political parties and a general lack of political voice coming from any who might support it, so far no one has been prosecuted for assisting relatives or loved ones in trips to the Dignitas clinic. As far as euthanasia is concerned, it is possible to read the political situation as not necessarily being against change, but as lacking key figures who are likely to champion the issue. The subject is felt to be too hot upon which for sensible politicians to tread, and perhaps as something of a ‘political graveyard’ in terms of reputation. Some might even argue that the existence of Dignitas is a convenient get-out clause for those who might otherwise be pressured into reaching a decision sooner, or else it might be possible that the contradiction of legal bodies turning a blind eye to UK citizens receiving assisted suicide succeeds in dragging the unwilling political voice firmly into the spotlight, as the legal demands of Tony Nicklinson seem likely to achieve at least temporarily.

The Crown Prosecution Service now find themselves with a potentially awkward decision, perhaps further pressurised by the presence of the European Court of Human Rights as an extra body to appeal to should answers not satisfy the need for ‘clarity’ and, perhaps even more divisively, have the human rights of the individual in mind.