Another so-called ‘mercy-killing’ case has raised the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the UK.
It is suggested that the case of Kay Gilderdale, 55, the mother cleared of attempting to murder her seriously ill daughter, Lynn, has been turned into a ‘showpiece’ and used by the Director of Public Prosecutions and pro-euthanasia campaigners to build public sympathy for assisted suicide.
Lynn Gilderdale, 31, decided she wanted to end her life after her body had been left ‘broken’ by 17 years of the chronic fatigue illness ME and died following a cocktail of morphine and other drugs. Her mother admitted assisting her suicide by giving her sleeping pills, antidepressants and injecting air into her veins in December 2008.
After admitting assisting in the suicide of her daughter, Mrs Gilderdale was also prosecuted for the attempted murder of her daughter. On 25 January 2010 she was cleared unanimously by a jury in less than two hours.
The day after the acquittal, the DPP, Keir Starmer, was forced to issue a statement defending the prosecution. A House of Commons motion suggested Mr Starmer brought the charge to coincide with the release of his own guidelines on assisted suicide.
The motion, which was put down by former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe, has been supported by pro-life MPs from all parties. It said that the DPP’s ‘guidelines jeopardise the right to life of the vulnerable sick and disabled’.
(Click here to read the motion)
The MPs acted as right-to-die campaigner Debbie Purdy called for legislation to ensure there will be no more prosecutions of people such as Mrs Gilderdale.
Dr Peter Saunders, director of Care Not Killing, said that assisting in a suicide and so-called ‘mercy killings’ are illegal so that vulnerable people are protected from exploitation and abuse and that the current law acts as a powerful deterrent.
‘Many cases of financial, physical or emotional abuse’, he said, ‘occur within the context of so-called loving families. The law is there both to protect carers from being subtly coerced into helping loved ones kill themselves and also to protect vulnerable, sick or disabled people from succumbing to pressure, real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden to others.’
‘If we remove or lessen the penalty for so-called ‘mercy killing’ we will leave vulnerable people without adequate legal protection and also contribute to a mindset that the lives of sick or disabled people are somehow less worth living. Both of these would be tremendously damaging to society. It is therefore extremely important that the current law, which holds tough penalties in reserve but gives discretion for judges to show leniency in hard cases, is upheld.’