It’s not often I feel sorry for
the Director of Public Prosecutions. After all, he’s on a fat salary, index linked pension, and if he keeps
his nose clean, a knighthood and further professional advancement. And by all accounts, he isn’t required to do
much other than pontificate from the margins and delegate to his minions.
But the House of Lords judgment
in the Debbie Purdy case has handed him the poisoned chalice, and yes, I feel
sorry for him. He’s in the impossible
position of trying to square the circle, and it can’t be done. I’m astonished their lordships didn’t see it,
and I suspect they wanted to go out with a bang.
For those asleep over the past
twenty four hours, and the rest, Debbie Purdy has a debilitating and incurable
illness, and has made a provisional booking with Dignitas, the suicide
assisting clinic in Switzerland. Needless to say, when the time is right, she
wants her husband to accompany her. But
she wants an assurance that he will not be prosecuted under the Suicide Act
1961, which in theory carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment for
anybody found guilty of assisting another person’s suicide.
I have already commented in an
earlier article back in October last that the Act should be repealed [Stand
not on the order of your going] and I am flattered to note that the
vast majority of people canvassed agree with me. By all accounts, all but the most pigheaded
are inching ever closer to repeal, but it’s like the word that dare not speak
its name, and with the obvious exception of the former Lord Chancellor, those
in high places refuse to stand up and be counted. Were it ever thus in the
political hothouse. Politics as
practised by this government is all about being seen to do much about nothing,
as the late and unlamented Jacqui Smith will testify.
So imagine the DPP’s dilemma with
the Act still on the statute books. If
assisted suicide remains a criminal offence, then surely each assisted suicide
must be judged on its own particular facts. To suggest otherwise is to make a mockery of the law. There will be cases, perhaps the vast
majority, where the assistant is clearly acting in the best interests of the
person wishing to die, and almost always he or she will be their nearest and
dearest. In the absence of any
suspicious circumstances, it would be wrong to prosecute. But there may be cases, hopefully few in
number, where there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the death, and
they must be investigated and prosecuted. I don’t suppose anybody would argue with that.
Surely that’s as far as he can go
if he is to pay lip service to the Act. The DPP cannot anticipate what should or should not be done until the
assisted suicide has actually taken place. Then it will be for Plod to investigate and report back, and then, and
only then, can the DPP make an informed decision.
As things stand, there is simply
no easy answer, and certainly no answer that would cover every
possibility. The law lords have simply
passed on the poisoned chalice, as they too can do no more. The solution is simple for all
concerned. Read my article again. It’s all there. Get on and move on, otherwise this and other
tragic cases are set to run and run, with more court time, more pontifications,
more fudging, and nobody the wiser. Requiescat
in pace.
- Article Word Count: 542
- |
- Total Views: 36
- |
- permalink