The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s decision in the joint case brought by Paul Lamb and the family of the late Tony Nicklinson.
The case was dismissed unanimously by three Court of Appeal Judges who ruled that it was unlawful for a doctor to end the life of a patient on request, and that it was for Parliament, not the courts, to decide whether the law should be changed.
Martin
But another paralysed man, known only as “Martin”, won his case to receive clearer clarification on assisted suicide laws from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
He wants a health professional to assist him in travelling to the Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland without facing prosecution.
Nicklinson
Tony Nicklinson suffered from locked-in-syndrome and died shortly in August 2012 after losing his legal bid to end his life in the High Court.
His lawyers had argued that the principle of necessity should allow a doctor to kill him without being charged for murder.
His campaign went further in its demands than the usual push from those in support of assisted suicide, in that it sought to make it lawful for UK doctors to perform full-scale euthanasia. But the High Court ruled that the current law did not breach human rights.
Following the ruling, Mrs Nicklinson pledged to continue her husband’s campaign, and was granted permission to take her case to the Court of Appeal earlier this year.
Lamb
Paul Lamb, who was left severely paralysed by a car accident in 1990, joined forces with Mr Nicklinson’s family, and also sought a court order permitting doctors to end his life without facing murder charges.
But hearing the cases jointly in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday (31 July), the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson and Lord Justice Elias upheld the ruling of the High Court, saying that there should be no change in the murder law to allow a doctor to take someone’s life at their request with a “defence of necessity”.
They said that the law could only be changed by Parliament which represented “the conscience of the nation” on life and death issues.
“Judges, however eminent, do not: our responsibility is to discover the relevant legal principles, and apply the law as we find it,” Lord Judge said.
Mrs Nicklinson and Mr Lamb have said that they will appeal the ruling, whilst the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced his intention to appeal the Martin decision in the Supreme Court.
Hard cases
Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Legal Centre, commented:
“We’re relieved that the judges have upheld the current law on murder. It’s there for our protection and doesn’t need changing. As the judges pointed out, no country in the common law world has gone so far as to recognise a defence to murder where another person acts on a competent person’s wish to end his or her own life. This kind of change would put thousands of vulnerable people at risk.
“It was always unlikely that the Court would rule in favour of Lamb and Nicklinson. But the legal battle is part of a bigger strategy of the anti-life lobby. The cases get lots of media attention, the spotlight turns on Westminster and pressure is built up for MPs to change the law.
“We’ve already seen how the legal landscape has changed in the aftermath of the Purdy case. There have been no prosecutions since the DPP issued guidelines on assisted dying. This becomes a stepping stone for lobbyists to pressure parliament into changing the law on suicide. Law makers need to be aware of this strategy and consider the principles carefully rather than be swayed by clever PR based on hard cases.
“In the current economic climate of rising costs, unemployment and benefit cuts, budgets are squeezed. We must remember the most vulnerable in our midst such as the elderly and disabled.”
Source: