My Lords, I shall make a brief comment on the section of the Bill that deals with assisted suicide. Our law is in a mess. It needs urgent clarification and I hope that it will be amended at a later stage. Why is reform urgent? It is because when people commit what the law says is a serious crime, the Director of Public Prosecutions will not prosecute. As we have now learnt, he has not done so in something like 100 cases, which is an extraordinary situation. The urgency is underlined by an important report that appeared in the Times last week stating that more and more desperate people are asking nurses how they can help to get them to Switzerland. They are asking urgently for a code of conduct.
In the past, the injustice or absurdity of a law has often forced change because juries would refuse to convict. When the offence was stealing and anything worth more than five shillings was a hanging offence, juries had to make two findings; namely, did the accused steal and what was the stolen object worth? If an accused stole, say, £10, the jury would often find that, "Yes, he was guilty of theft, but the £10 stolen was worth four shillings". In due course the law was changed. In earlier times one could also escape the gallows by claiming benefit of clergy. An accused could claim to be a clergyman if he could read the 51st psalm. Those who were illiterate would learn it off by heart. After 1547, the privilege of claiming benefit of clergy was sometimes extended to Peers of the realm. But that law also fell into disrepute.
The position we have now reached is no less absurd. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not believe a prosecution for assisting suicide in Switzerland would result in a conviction, which is not surprising. Every opinion poll shows support of more than 80 per cent for legalising suicide, which includes Catholics and Protestants as much as non-believers. Church leaders—I am sorry that none are present—are completely out of touch with their congregation on this issue. This popular support is not based on ignorance or a temporary fashion. It has been consistent over a long period and is based on the personal experience of miserable deaths of relatives and friends.
Recently, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said on Radio 4: ""I think we have reached the stage ... where prosecutors are effectively deciding that in an entire category of case they’re not going to apply the public interest in favour of a prosecution. That opens up the question as to whether the law is still appropriately framed and I think it is an indication that we may have moved, society may have moved, beyond the law and that the law needs to catch up a bit"."
In the same programme, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, made a statement which has already been quoted. He said that, ""we are approaching a point at which the law does not match the expectations of reasonable people"."
The noble and learned Lord’s remedy for this flaw is very humane and completely in line with public opinion and actual practice. He said: ""I think the best possible situation is where you've got a general practitioner, knows the family, knows the family's wishes, knows the patient, appreciates the extent to which the patient is in pain and gently ups the dose of painkiller to a point where it is in fact lethal","
which happens all the time.
Let me remind your Lordships of the present law. To withdraw life support, to turn off a ventilator or to switch off a life support machine—a positive act that directly causes death—is not a crime. To provide a lethal drug that leaves it to the patient to decide whether or not to use it is a crime, with a penalty of a possible 15 years’ imprisonment. To increase a dose of painkillers gradually until it proves lethal, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, suggests, is not a crime. To administer sufficient painkillers in one dose that proves lethal is a crime, punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment. To help someone commit suicide in Switzerland is not a crime for which you will be prosecuted. To assist suicide in Britain, where those who are forced to go to Switzerland would much prefer to die, is a crime for which you will be prosecuted and is subject to a penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
Only the most consummate casuist can support the law as it stands. It is not sustainable logically and, much more important, morally. In the words of Bumble the Beadle: ""The law is a ass"."
The least we can do is clear up the terrifying uncertainty for those—there are more and more of them—whose relatives desperately want to go to Switzerland for relief.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taverne
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 May 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c1272-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:49:18 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559278
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559278
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_559278