Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Politicians set to vote with their consciences over assisted suicide

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 March 2009
MPS could have a free vote on a bid to prevent people facing the threat of prosecution if they help terminally ill patients to die abroad, it emerged yesterday.
Former health secretary Patricia Hewitt wants to change the law to protect friends and relatives who help people to go to a country where assisted dying is lawful.

Her amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill may be debated by the Commons next
week – if the Speaker, Michael Martin, selects it – and the government has indicated that MPs will be free to vote with their consciences.

The Prime Minister's spokesman said: "This will be treated as a matter for individual MPs to decide how to vote."

The spokesman added that Gordon Brown was not in favour of a change in the law. He said that allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether to prosecute people alleged to have assisted suicide was the "best solution".

More than 100 Britons are thought to have gone to Switzerland to die in clinics run by the organisation Dignitas. No-one providing assistance has been prosecuted but several family members have been questioned. Normally the DPP decides that prosecutions are not in the public interest.

Ms Hewitt's amendment, backed by Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, seeks to amend the Suicide Act 1961, which does not apply in Scotland, by saying an offence will not have taken place if assistance is given "solely or principally" for helping someone to go to an assisted dying clinic.

A separate motion calling for the issue to be debated has the support of 102 MPs, including Scots Sir Menzies Campbell, Alistair Carmichael and Jim Devine.

Ms Hewitt said her amendment was only "reinforcing the current prosecution policy" in England and Wales.

In Scotland, common law rules on culpable homicide could be used by prosecutors. Margo MacDonald, the independent MSP, aims to put a bill to the Scottish Parliament to legalise assisted suicide.

Ms Hewitt said: "In the long term, we need a bill to change the law to allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults suffering at the end of their lives the choice of an assisted death, within safeguards, in this country.

"In the meantime, I hope that the amendment I have tabled will prompt the long overdue parliamentary debate necessary to bring the law on assisted suicide in line with the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the courts."

Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled that Debbie Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis and wanted a guarantee that no charges would be brought against her husband if he helped her go abroad to die, was not entitled to such specific legal guidance.

Lesley Close, who accompanied her terminally ill brother John to Switzerland for an assisted suicide in 2003, said. "That amendment would make such a difference to people planning their loved ones' last journeys."

But Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, a prominent critic of previous attempts to legalise assisted dying in the UK, said: "Making the law prescriptive, in the way Patricia Hewitt is attempting to do, will make it much more difficult for the attorney-general and the DPP to exercise their discretion and one should not underestimate the importance of that discretion as part of our unwritten constitution."

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the Dignity in Dying group, said the bill failed to distinguish between maliciously encouraging a suicide and compassionately assisting a terminally ill, mentally competent adult who wants to die.

Peter Saunders, director of the Care Not Killing alliance, said: "The result would be a law that discouraged suicide with one hand and encouraged it with the other. That would be farcical as well as tragic."





The full article contains 626 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 March 2009 12:14 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Euthanasia
 
1

SirJockland61™,

21/03/2009 02:28:04
1. Canes Pugnaces

What a very silly statement. This is a serious issue which needs mature consideration. Lets bring it on and debate the issue.

If one of my family had a serious disease which made their life intolerable and had to be subjected to months of pain killing drugs before they died I would to say t he least be very sad.

On the other hand if one of my dogs was suffering I would be able to approach my vet and agree the way forward. The wee Man/Lass is suffering so it would be best for him to be put out of his/her misery. It is agreed and dealt with.

Why in this instance is an animal treated better than a Human?

2

donald anderson it's me,

glasgow 21/03/2009 05:08:57
"Labour's left"?

Where? When? Whit?
3

John Cameron,

St Andrews 21/03/2009 09:23:21
Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia should be a right granted to all citizens who are suffering from a degenerative, painful, or fatal condition. It is not up to ethicists to make decisions that infringe upon the rights of the ill and infirm. Furthermore, having access to physician-assisted suicide allows the patient to maintain control over his or her situation and to end life in an ethical and merciful manner. Some terminally ill patients suffer from a great deal of pain and no longer wish to have their lives artificially prolonged by expensive, painful, or debilitating treatments and would rather die quietly. Every human being should have the right to decide when and in what palliative care context their life ends. Being kept alive by technology against one’s wishes is cruel and inhuman, especially if pain is a constant factor. Already medical illness is a factor in half the suicides of people aged 50 and 70 percent of those of 70 years of age. Increased life expectancy, chronic illnesses, technological advances, and expanded treatment options have all complicated the process of dying. If a patient feels that these treatments are unnecessary, who are we to say that they should not have the right to end treatment and die without further suffering? In general, it seems more reasonable to base our decisions about this practice on empirical matters such as the right of the individual in deciding not to suffer indefinitely rather more philosophical questions about religious doctrine and code. While this is not to say that religion has no place in the debate, doctrinal opinions must be tempered with mercy.
4

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

21/03/2009 09:49:38
We need to get a grip of ourselves and act like adults re this instead of spineless "Lets not offend the religious and knee jerkers"

Dignity in death now!
5

SandyBottoms,

Edinburgh 21/03/2009 12:36:07
Hear Hear, Horrible Cankers.

It's easy to put enough guidelines and restrictions upon such a law that only "adults of sound mind" would be able to participate, and for those hundred people or so, the power to control at least one aspect of their life would be welcomed.
6

For Scotlands Future,

21/03/2009 12:51:11
"Politicians set to vote with their consciences over assisted suicide"

I see it's going to be a very low turn-out then.
7

FS,

Stirling 21/03/2009 16:03:24
Yeah, great idea. So when another Harold Shipman comes along he (or god forbid she!) can bump people off with impunity. Thats using the old noodle!
8

Cassan,

Inverness 21/03/2009 22:52:54
It's wrong, pure and simply, and doctors should not be put in this position, a doctor's job is to preserve life or/and to ease suffering not to actively participate in ending a life at what may be the whim of a relative and to compare the life of a human to that of a cat or dog is frankly obscene.
9

Joe Macdelta.,

22/03/2009 08:39:09
They should be voting with their constituents views in mind, not their own views, they are there to represent the electorate.
We vote for politicians who we believe are going to represent our opinions, because they tell us that our concearns are theirs, once elected they couldnt give a stuff.
The main concearn of politicians seems to be, how much they can claim for what, and how long they can get away with it, they are not interested in what worries us, just get the nose bag on and toe the party line.
10

Tabetha,

el paso 25/03/2009 00:20:23
Please don't commit assisted suicide
just say out loud now Jesus I believe
and I receive you in my heart please
heal me for more help please go to
leroyjenkins.com
11

Alexander the Scot,

Michigan U.S.A. 29/09/2009 04:09:22

.......How did the two words, "Politicians" and "Consciences" manage to sneak into one sentence?!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.