Only parliament can help Tony Nicklinson
If Tony Nicklinson had the ability, he would take his own life.
The father-of-two says his current existence, paralysed from the neck down and communicating through blinking, is intolerable. Without the physical capability, he will need someone to assist him, but the law will not grant immunity from prosecution for anyone who does.
Today’s High Court judgment reaffirms that law and states categorically that the court is not capable of changing it. But is that the end of the issue? I hope not - and neither, I suspect, do the judges who presided over this case. It’s important to note this case was never about Nicklinson’s right to die – it was about the court’s disposal to turn the other cheek.
Tomorrow’s newspaper headlines may suggest Nicklinson has ‘lost’ his case, but the issue is clearly not going to go away (not least because his lawyers plan to appeal). If Nicklinson’s family or medical staff decide to help him to die, what likelihood is there of prosecution in reality? The judgment itself says the risk of prosecution is likely to depend on circumstances, whilst the general public would surely be aghast at mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted.
This is an ethical and legal issue. Today’s judgment makes it clear that voluntary euthanasia is unlawful. But it makes no reference to the ethical debate that underpins this case – instead the baton has been passed to parliament to clarify this issue once and for all.
Lord Justice Toulson states that ‘these are not things which the court should do. It is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place.’ This issue requires the will of parliament and, by implication, the will of the people. It requires debate, conviction, leadership and courage, though whether our current parliamentarians are capable is another matter.
It is impossible not to feel sympathy for Tony Nicklinson and his family as he suffers, by his own admission, a living nightmare. But it is for parliament, not the court, to put him out of his misery.
Follow John on Twitter
Comments
The suffering of these two is
The suffering of these two is unfathomable and it does seem tragic that they are still not allowed to legally end their lives. I gather a large part of what Tony was arguing is that the law is essentially discriminatory in that a normal person can kill themselves whenever they want yet someone with locked in syndrome simply cannot, despite their best efforts.
I understand that the courts are worried about creating a precedent that would open the floodgates to anyone wanting to kill themselves but it surely doesn't have to be this way. I can't see why it wouldn't be possible to tweak the law slightly to allow clearly defined exceptions to be exempt from criminal prosecution. For example, the person wishing to be legally aided in committing suicide:
- should be compos mentis;
- should be physically incapable of ending their own life;
- and should, from the time of their initial decision to end their life, live for X amount of time before the demand is seriously looked at. This would cut out spontaneous and ill thought-out decisions (similar to the approach taken in having a sex-change operation).
A definition along these lines would surely allow only people in Tony and Martin's situation to end their lives, without allowing the proverbial camel's nose to creep in.
This being said, if Tony and Martin really want to die and are happy to drop the legal battle, they could just ask a friend or family member to go to Dignitas with them. The DPP (Kier Starmer) published guidance back in 2008 essentially indicating that family members or friends who help a desperately ill person to die out of compassion, and not for financial gain, will not be prosecuted. Since 2002, over 160 Britons have died at Dignitas and no one has yet been prosecuted. Those seem pretty good odds to me.
Dignitas
With regard to the last paragraph of your post Jamie it may well be that the family and, possibly, the friends of a desperately ill person are willing to take the risk of prosecution but please consider other professionals who are asked to assist.
I am a Notary Public i.e. I certify documents for use abroad. To get an appointment at Dignitas you cannot just walk in off the street. Dignitas requires notarised copies of birth certificates, marriage certificates etc. Several of my colleagues have been asked to provide these. Our Regulator, The Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, has expressed the view that in view of the terms of our Notarial Oath of Office (Public Notaries Act 1843) and Notarial Law generally we must refuse to notarise documents for this purpose as we could be considered to be assisting in the suicide and thus liable to prosecution under the present law. Surely it is quite unreasonable to expect outside professionals with no family or friendship connections to the ill party to run the risk, however slight, of prosecution and the prison sentence resulting from a conviction. Parliament has to take the final decision on this - either Assisted Suicide is legal or it is not.