right to die? or right to kill?'..........

The term "right to die" refers to various issues that relate to whether an individual, who could continue to live with the aid of life support, or in a diminished or enfeebled capacity, should be allowed to decide to die. In some cases, it refers to the idea that a person with a terminal illness and in serious condition should be allowed to commit suicide before death would otherwise occur. Central to this argument is whether loved ones or physicians should knowingly aid these individuals and if so, should they be deemed criminally responsible?

In England, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer said motives of suspects will be the main focus for prosecutors. Mr Starmer’s office is keen to see not necessarily the laws changed, but would like to stress to those prosecuting that they take into account all facts relevant to the case.

They have outlined what they see as key factors that should be considered when looking at prosecuting someone with’ assisting suicide’, a charge that can carry up to 14 years in jail if convicted. These factors state that anyone acting in a wholly compassionate way, which did not encourage but assisted someone who had reached a sound and settled decision to commit suicide, would be more than likely not be prosecuted. These guidelines are only given as having any merit if the individual fully cooperates with the police.

Who decides that these guidelines have been met? At what point does your cooperation with the police stop and your potential self incrimination begin?

Well known members of the community have spoken out in support of the DPP’s findings including Right to Die Campaigners, Debbie Purdy and Sir Terry Pratchett. Mrs Purdy is battling Multiple Sclerosis and Sir Terry’s high profile diagnosis with Alzheimer’s disease has allowed him the platform to spark public debate on the issue.

Even though Mr Starmer still acknowledges that it is crime to assist suicide, some see his approach to deciding who is prosecuted as opening the floodgates to exploitation. It has also struck fear into the most vulnerable sectors of society as acknowledged by public statements from charities for both the elderly and the disabled. This view has also been quite firmly shared by the Prime Minister himself.

The overwhelming conclusion by parties both for and against is that the findings do not go near being enough to help put the debate on this issue to rest. Whilst focusing on who would be prosecuted for assisting suicide, the findings have no solid ground on which members of society the DPP deem are in a position to take their own life legally. The calls of a full parliamentary debate will also not go far enough as they will not reflect or demonstrate the true nature of the people suffering to such an extent, they would want to end their own life.

Before asking if they should be allowed I think the question is why are so many people seeking this alternative to alleviate their pain? These cases are growing everyday and without the due diligence and response to the people seeking this end, who to prosecute after the fact will be a very moot point.

darren cummins