The Coroners and Justice Bill seeks to update the wording of the Suicide Act 1961, which declares that anyone who “aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another” commits a criminal offence. It adds to the number of offences, by prohibiting the encouragement of suicide by websites. Unfortunately, the Government has given Peers a free vote on the issue, which means that they do not have to vote in accordance with Gordon Brown’s stated view that assisted suicide should not be allowed.
Lord Alderdice tabled an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill on 27th May that would exempt a person from prosecution for assisting a suicide where the victim has “an incurable and disabling illness” and a “free and settled wish” to end his or her life.
This is the text of the amendment:
Exceptions to offence of assisting suicide
Notwithstanding sections 49 to 51, no offence shall have been committed if assistance is given to a person to commit suicide who is suffering from a confirmed, incurable and disabling illness which prevents him from carrying through his own wish to bring his life to a close, if the person has received certification from a coroner who has investigated the circumstances, and satisfied himself that it is indeed the free and settled wish of the person that he brings his life to a close.
Please pray that the majority of Peers will see the inadequacy of the safeguards in this proposed clause and the limitations that it is likely to bring to the freedom of conscience of coroners, doctors and others. Please pray that they are empowered by the Lord to argue compellingly and to vote against the amendment.
Lord Falconer and Lord Low have tabled a further amendment to the Bill so as to exempt those who assist a relative to travel abroad to commit suicide from prosecution. It reads:
"Acts not capable of encouraging or assisting suicide.
1) An act by an individual (D) is not to be treated as capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another adult (T) if-
a) the act is done solely or principally for the purpose of enabling or assisting T to travel to a country or territory in which assisted dying is lawful;
b) prior to the act, two registered medical practitioners, independent of each other, have certified that they are of the opinion in good faith that T is terminally ill and has the capacity to make the declaration under subsection (2); and
c) prior to the act, T has made a declaration under subsection (2)
2) A declaration by T is made under this subsection if the declaration-
a) is made freely in writing and is signed by T (or is otherwise recorded and authenticated if T is incapable of signing it),
b) states that T-
i) has read or been informed of the contents of the certificates under subsection (1)
(b), and
ii) has decided to travel to a country or territory falling within subsection (1) (a) for the purpose of obtaining assistance in dying, and
( c ) is witnessed by an independent witness chosen by T
3) "Independent witness" means a person who is not-
a) likely to obtain any benefit from the death of T; or
b) a close relative or friend of T; or
c) involved in caring for T
4) D is not to be treated as having done an act capacble of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of T by virtue of being with T when, in a country or territory falling within subsection (1) (a), T takes steps (including steps taken with the assistance of D) to commit suicide by lawful means"
It is reported that Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Baroness Greengross, former head of Age Concern England, and Lord (Naren) Patel, chairman of the National Patient Safety Agency support such a change. The Observer reports that they are “increasingly confident” of winning the vote. To read the Times article, click here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6395949.ece.
Arguments are made that this is the “compassionate” option; that it gives people “choice”; that it enables them to preserve their “dignity” and that it is the “safe” option for the desperate. Similar arguments were doubtless made in relation to the Abortion Act in the 1960’s, yet the annual abortion rate has soared from 6,100 in 1967 to 195,296 in 2008.
During the Second Reading debate when this Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 18 May 2009, Lord Hylton argued that “many people, especially the feeble-minded, the frail, the elderly, the confused or the chronically ill, are particularly vulnerable. They deserve our protection against coercion or persuasion to take their own lives.” He reminded the House of Harold Shipman, the former GP who may have murdered as many as 250 of his patients.
On 3 May 2009, The Times published a good article on The dangers of dicing with assisted death by Gillian Bowditch. To read the article, click here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6210841.ece.
In addition, on 7 June 2009, The Times published another good article by Dominic Lawson on the same topic. To read the article, click here:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6446662.ece
|
A vote in favour of these amendments would be a huge victory for the VES and euthanasia will be brought in through the back door. Please pray that Peers remember what mockery is made of the “safeguards” in the Abortion Act 1967 every day and that they vote against Lord Alderdice’s and Lord Falconer’s amendments. Please use our Information & Action Pack to continue to write to Peers on this important issue. |
 |