Should Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?
Should Assisted Suicide Be Legalised?
The status and legality of assisted suicide have long been debated in the UK. It is an undeniably sensitive topic and the result of such debates have serious repercussions either way. There have been many attempts at reform, but in a strictly legal sense, the law remains the same, as when it was introduced in the Suicide Act of 1961 (SA). The main topic for discussion is whether legalisation is, in fact, needed and if such action would be proportionate when taking into considerations all the potential dangers and benefits. It seems useful to first explore the current legal standpoint, such as the Suicide Act as already mentioned, but also the guidelines and cases that have substantially altered the law. …show more content…
Most of the cases brought before the courts are based on human rights and typically art 8, the right to private and family life. The most impactful cases here are: Purdy (as mentioned above) and Pretty v UK. As already discussed, the Purdy case lead to the release of the DPP guidelines. This decision was based on the lack of accessibility and foreseeability required under art 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, this case, unlike the Diane Pretty case, did not go to the European Court of Human Right (ECtHR). Pretty sought a guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted for assisting her in taking her own life. Her argument was based on the idea the right to life also includes an inherent “right to die”, but this argument was dismissed. She also argued that art 8 should apply, but seeing as this is not an absolute right, it needs to be carried out in accordance with the domestic law. They held this to be justified, as it is a matter of public interest. However, this reasoning makes it appear that the ECtHR did not necessarily disagree with her arguments, which is not surprising, as there is no clear evidence that the right to die is contrary to the European Convention of Human rights 1953. However, the ECtHR is clearly reluctant to interfere with domestic law and leaves these matters up for the member states’ own interpretation. In more recent developments, there were two applications brought to the ECtHR that sought to challenge the ban on assisted suicide, by arguing it was incompatible with art 8. The cases of Nicklinson and Lamb were both held to be inadmissible and was not considered in the ECtHR. They based this dismissal on previous case law (mainly Pretty) and the several reform attempts in the UK. These considerations made the UK’s position clear and the ECtHR did not want to make
The status and legality of assisted suicide have long been debated in the UK. It is an undeniably sensitive topic and the result of such debates have serious repercussions either way. There have been many attempts at reform, but in a strictly legal sense, the law remains the same, as when it was introduced in the Suicide Act of 1961 (SA). The main topic for discussion is whether legalisation is, in fact, needed and if such action would be proportionate when taking into considerations all the potential dangers and benefits. It seems useful to first explore the current legal standpoint, such as the Suicide Act as already mentioned, but also the guidelines and cases that have substantially altered the law. …show more content…
Most of the cases brought before the courts are based on human rights and typically art 8, the right to private and family life. The most impactful cases here are: Purdy (as mentioned above) and Pretty v UK. As already discussed, the Purdy case lead to the release of the DPP guidelines. This decision was based on the lack of accessibility and foreseeability required under art 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, this case, unlike the Diane Pretty case, did not go to the European Court of Human Right (ECtHR). Pretty sought a guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted for assisting her in taking her own life. Her argument was based on the idea the right to life also includes an inherent “right to die”, but this argument was dismissed. She also argued that art 8 should apply, but seeing as this is not an absolute right, it needs to be carried out in accordance with the domestic law. They held this to be justified, as it is a matter of public interest. However, this reasoning makes it appear that the ECtHR did not necessarily disagree with her arguments, which is not surprising, as there is no clear evidence that the right to die is contrary to the European Convention of Human rights 1953. However, the ECtHR is clearly reluctant to interfere with domestic law and leaves these matters up for the member states’ own interpretation. In more recent developments, there were two applications brought to the ECtHR that sought to challenge the ban on assisted suicide, by arguing it was incompatible with art 8. The cases of Nicklinson and Lamb were both held to be inadmissible and was not considered in the ECtHR. They based this dismissal on previous case law (mainly Pretty) and the several reform attempts in the UK. These considerations made the UK’s position clear and the ECtHR did not want to make