DDP Guidelines on assisted suicide - Improved but still dangerous

Kier Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), yesterday (25/02/2010) issued his long awaited guidelines on assisted suicide.

Kier Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), yesterday (25/02/2010) issued his long awaited guidelines on assisted suicide.

Although Mr Starmer stated that the guidelines “do not change the law on assisted suicide”, they were welcomed as a “victory” by Debbie Purdy, the campaigner who pushed for a change in the law, and by Dignity in Dying—the pro-euthanasia lobby.

Mr Starmer also said “it does not open the door for euthanasia.” However, it remains to be seen how the policy will be implemented and what further liberalisations of the law will come as a result of this first step.

The guidelines (reproduced, in part, below) are certainly an improvement on the interim guidelines issued in September 2009. There are now 16 public interest factors in favour of prosecution and the number of public interest factors against prosecution has been reduced to 6. Included in the list where a prosecution should occur is where “the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse or other health care professional...and the victim was in his or her care”.  In other words, the guidelines will not allow ‘physician assisted suicide’.

Furthermore, whether the victim had an “incurable physical disability” has also been removed as a factor. Lord Carlisle, Chairman of Care Not Killing said: “Our main concern was that the interim guidelines singled out as a group those who were disabled or ill, thereby affording them less protection than other people under the law. We are very glad this has been removed.”

The guidelines also state that “a prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution that outweigh those tending in favour.”

However, disability groups are still extremely concerned. Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope, said: “Many disabled people are frightened by the consequences of these new guidelines and with good reason. There is a real danger these changes will result in disabled people being pressured to end their lives.”

A key factor that would incline the CPS not to bring a prosecution is if “the suspect was wholly motivated by compassion”. It has been widely acknowledged that this will be extremely difficult to prove. As the BBC legal affairs analyst, Clive Coleman, points out: “It will not be easy to determine motive when the main witness in the case is dead. There could also be relatives fighting over the deceased’s estate who have an interest in ascribing a false motive to the suspect.”

Hence, although the guidelines are an improvement, there is still much cause for concern.

Andrea Williams, Director of Christian Concern for Our Nation, said: “Thank you to all of our supporters who wrote to the DPP to voice your concerns.  Your actions clearly made a difference to the final guidelines that were published and we must thank God that the guidelines have improved.  We must now stay alert and see how the policy is implemented by the CPS.  Christians must be aware that the battle to protect life and prevent the legalisation of euthanasia has not ended. We need to continue to work and pray on this issue.”

The 16 public interest factors in favour of prosecution are:

• The victim was under 18 years of age.

• The victim did not have the capacity (as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to reach an informed decision to commit suicide.

• The victim had not reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.

• The victim had not clearly and unequivocally communicated his or her decision to commit suicide to the suspect.

• The victim did not seek the encouragement or assistance of the suspect personally or on his or her own initiative.

• The suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that he or she or a person closely connected to him or her stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim.

• The suspect pressured the victim to commit suicide.

• The suspect did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person had not pressured the victim to commit suicide.

• The suspect had a history of violence or abuse against the victim.

• The victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance himself or herself.

• The suspect was unknown to the victim and encouraged or assisted the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication.

• The suspect gave encouragement or assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other.

• The suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for his or her encouragement or assistance.

• The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer (whether for payment or not), or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care.

• The suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present.

• The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a person involved in the management or as an employee (whether for payment or not) of an organisation or group, a purpose of which is to provide a physical environment (whether for payment or not) in which to allow another to commit suicide.

The six public interest factors against prosecution are:

• The victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.

• The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion.

• The actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the crime, were of only minor encouragement or assistance.

• The suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide.

• The actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide.

• The suspect reported the victim’s suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.