In a severe blow to two ‘locked-in syndrome’ sufferers, the English High Court has held that it cannot grant them the right to die with medical help, as it is an issue which can only be decided by Parliament.
In R (on the application of Tony Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381 (Admin), one of the applicants had sought an assurance that it would not be unlawful for a doctor to assist him to die, or in the alternative a declaration that the current law on murder or assisted suicide was incompatible with his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The other applicant had sought a court order to compel the Director of Public Prosecutions to clarify whether health professionals willing to assist him to travel to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland would be ‘more likely than not’ to face prosecution in England and further assurances that professionals would not risk disciplinary proceedings.
Lord Justice Toulson held that granting the men the "right to die" would have broad implications beyond their individual cases and would result in a major change to laws on murder in the UK. Considering these implications, Lord Justice Toulson held that, “it is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place...Under our system of government these are matters for parliament to decide, representing society as a whole, after parliamentary scrutiny, and not for the court on the facts of an individual case or cases”.
After the High Court decision, Tony Nicklinson announced his intention to appeal the decision. As today's Bulletin went to press, a spokesperson for Mr Nicklinson's family announced that he had died at his home. It is not yet clear whether his estate still intends to appeal - and this would raise issues of mootness. Legal proceedings are moot when there is no longer a legal dispute between the parties. This doctrine of “mootness” is a barrier to public interest litigation as it means that a plaintiff cannot pursue their claim if their individual problem, on which their claim is based, has been resolved. This is so even if the problem may arise for others as the law remains the same.
Click here to read an article in the Guardian about the case.