Euthanasia has recently been brought back to the forefront of ethical debate following a ruling by the Law Lords that the law in the UK needs to be clarified. Debbie Purdy, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, wants the law to be clearer about when a relative could be prosecuted in assisted suicide cases. Although this does not mean that euthanasia has been decriminalised, it may mean that people who suffer from incurable diseases will be more able to travel to countries where it is legal so that they can die in the way that they choose.
The legal position on euthanasia can often been seen as confusing and there have been many attempts to clarify the position of the government on what constitutes a criminal offence. ‘Active’ euthanasia refers to when a treatment is administered with the intention of ending a person’s life. This can be done by either a medical professional or a family member and leaves the individual who assisted in the suicide liable for murder.
However, within English law there is a differentiation made between active euthanasia and refraining from acting to save a life; the latter is referred to as an act of omission and there are many examples where doctors or family members have failed to give treatment that would save the life of a terminally ill individual.
An example of this was the case of Anthony Bland in 1991. Bland was crushed in the Hillsborough Football Stadium disaster in April 1989 and was left in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). In 1993, his family and doctors went to court to seek permission to withdraw the artificial nutrition and hydration that was keeping him alive. The High Court and the House of Lords agreed that his treatment should be withdrawn, a landmark decision that has led to treatment being withdrawn for other people who have been in PVS for an extended length of time.
However, the debate becomes more complex when looking at the issue of degenerative diseases, where the body of the person is failing but their mind remains healthy. Such a case is the one of Diane Pretty, who suffered from motor neurone disease and wanted to ensure that her husband would not be prosecuted if he helped her to take her own life. As the law currently stands, it is illegal to assist someone’s suicide under the Suicide Act of 1961, meaning that her husband could have been charged with her murder.
The Netherlands legalised euthanasia in 2002, although it had been widely accepted since the 1970s. Each person who wishes to choose how they die must be in full possession of their mental faculties and have a terminal condition that causes them unbearable suffering. Estimates place the figure of euthanasia cases in the country at 2000 per year, with patients also travelling from other countries to take advantage of the legal preferences for assisted suicide. The most famous example of these are those who travel to the Dignitas clinics, but despite being illegal under UK law, and although family members who travel with terminally ill people can still face murder charges, none have been prosecuted to date.
Both sides of the debate obviously have an emotive edge, particularly when families are fighting in the courts to die with dignity. The pro-choice side of the debate argue that the ‘right to life’ which is seen as a basic human right also includes a right to choose how to end that life. For many terminally ill people, the thought of being trapped inside failing bodies is a far scarier prospect than death itself. Tamora Langley of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) says: “Doctors must realise that where they are unable to cure, they must offer acceptable alternatives... The desire to have control over our lives is a fundamental part of our humanity.” She also argued that doctors already assist people in suicide: a recent survey found that 4% of doctors admit to this.
Pro-choice groups also state that the British legal system continues to lag behind many of its European counterparts and that without legal safeguards being put in place, vulnerable patients are being put at risk. The pro-life campaign for euthanasia is built around similar arguments to those of the pro-life abortion campaign, stating that, in Dr Christopher Hufeland’s words; “the physician should and may do nothing else but preserve life. Whether it is valuable or not, that is none of his business. If he once permits such considerations to influence his actions, the doctor will become the most dangerous man in the state.”
Campaigners who want to stop euthanasia from progressing any further see that, in the future, doctors will become too powerful, causing particular concern about the fate of the elderly. Mike Willis, chairman of the Pro-Life Alliance says that “the legalising of intentional killing is the catalyst for the wholesale destruction of the elderly.” Some argue that in places such as Holland, where the government has taken greater steps towards legalising euthanasia, the elderly are terrified to go into hospitals for fear of involuntary euthanasia.
This is an issue that will continue to provoke hugely emotional debate as it concerns the right to live, and die, in the way that the individual sees fit. There is little doubt that people need to be protected from those who are trying to gain out of their deaths. However, when faced with the prospect of degenerative disease and what many see as final days trapped inside their bodies, it is unsurprising that these people want to maintain control over their own lives and how they should end.
Jenny Flack
30/11/2009
