The UK Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal challenging the illegality of voluntary euthanasia. One of the appellants, Jane Nicklinson, has pursued the case on behalf of her now deceased husband, Tony Nicklinson. The other applicant, Paul Lamb, is severely disabled and would need a third party to end his life. In August 2012 the High Court rejected Tony Nicklinson’s argument that the defence of necessity should be available to doctors assisting him to commit suicide and that the law of murder is incompatible with his right to privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Both applicants are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that assisted suicide laws infringe on Article 8 and common law rights, but held that the blanket ban on assisted dying is proportionate and therefore justified.
Chief Justice Lord Judge stated “The short answer must be, and always has been, that the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision. The repeated mantra that, if the law is to be changed, it must be changed by Parliament, does not demonstrate judicial abnegation of our responsibilities, but rather highlights fundamental constitutional principles.” Lord Judge made a comparison with abortion – the circumstances in which a pregnancy can be terminated have been specified by the UK's Parliament in legislation.
However the judges upheld the appeal of a third paralysed man, who sought clearer prosecution guidelines for healthcare workers who help others to die. The majority judgment said that the Director of Public Prosections must not merely list the factors considered when deciding whether to prosecute, but must also give some indication of the weight the DPP accords to the fact the person was helping as a healthcare professional. The applicant, who is known only as “Martin”, said, "Almost every aspect of my daily life is outside of my control. I want, at least, to be able to control my death and this judgement goes some way to allow me to do this."
The British Humanist Association, which intervened in both cases, has expressed its disappointment at the outcome of the Nicklinson and Lamb case and has urged Parliament to legislate to help those living with incurable suffering to die in a humane manner if they so choose. Conversely the other intervening organisation, Care Not Killing, welcomed the ruling but expressed concern about the Martin decision to seek further clarification of prosecution guidelines. Click here to read a press release from the British Humanist Association, and click here to read a press release from Care Not Killing.
Click here to read the judgment in full.
Click here to read an article on the UK Human Rights Blog.
Click here to read an article in the Guardian.