MS woman wins right-to-die fight

[Larry]

A woman with multiple sclerosis has made legal history by winning her battle to have the law on assisted suicide clarified. Debbie Purdy, 46, from Bradford, may go to Switzerland to end her life but feared her husband could be prosecuted for helping her.
The Director of Public Prosecutions will publish an interim policy on when prosecutions could occur in September.
Ms Purdy said she was "ecstatic" and had been given her life back.
She said the decision was "a huge step towards a more compassionate law".
"I'm ecstatic - I feel like I've been given a reprieve.
"I want to live my life to the full but I don't want to suffer unnecessarily at the end of my life.
"The decision means that I can make an informed choice, with Omar, about whether he travels abroad with me to end my life because we will know exactly where we stand."
No one has been prosecuted for assisting someone's death, although the law says they could potentially face 14 years in prison.
But the Law Lords said the law was not as clear and precise as it should be.
They said the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must prepare an "offence-specific policy" identifying facts and circumstances which he would take into account when deciding whether or not to prosecute in cases like Debbie Purdy's.
She said she would like to see the policy distinguish between "what is acceptable and what isn't" so people in situations like hers could make decisions about what to do.

Human rights
The DPP, Keir Starmer, has said he would issue an interim policy by the end of September before putting the issue out to public consultation.
Permanent policy will then be published next spring.
Ms Purdy also won on a second point - the Law Lords said she did have the right to choose how she died, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.




She had previously lost challenges in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The Lords ruling was her last chance of success in the UK legal system.
Ms Purdy was diagnosed with primary progressive MS in March 1995. She can no longer walk and is gradually losing strength in her upper body.
She has suggested that at some point she may travel to Switzerland to take a lethal dose of barbiturates prescribed by doctors at the controversial Dignitas organisation.

More than 100 UK citizens have so far ended their lives at Dignitas, and no-one who has accompanied them has ever been prosecuted on their return to the UK.
However, the reasons why legal action has not been taken have never been made clear.

'Significant victory'
Ms Purdy had previously said that if the law was not clarified she would have had to end her life earlier than she wanted to.
Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "This historic judgement ensures the law keeps up with changes in society and crucially, provides a more rational deterrent to abuse than a blanket ban which is never enforced.

"That must be better than the current legal muddle.
"The ruling is significant because it distinguishes between maliciously encouraging someone to commit suicide and compassionately supporting someone's decision to die."

Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, said it was a "very significant victory".
Simon Gillespie, chief executive of the MS Society, said: "There are 100,000 people with MS across the UK and most will live about as long as any of us.
"The key to living well with MS is getting the right care and support from the point of diagnosis, including palliative care when it's needed."

the right decision IMO at least this woman can now die with dignity.

[Rob McCow]

This is such a difficult area. In theory, a person should have the right to decide to end their life in some circumstances, but where does the line get drawn? At one end of the scale there are those who are incapacitated and in constant pain - but how much pain is too much?

There are other issues, such as families pressuring older members to commit assisted suicide or somebody making that decision when they are not in their right mind.

The whole thing is a complex minefield and it would be so hard to make one ruling to suit everyone. On the other hand, you don't want to force families who are already going through a tough time to get involved in complicated assessments and law suits.

So basically, I haven't got a clue what the right thing to do about this is.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Well she's not asking for any laws to be changed, she's just asking for clarification on what they actually are and what, if any, consequences there would be for her partner. So in that respect it's not a difficult situation at all. Everyone should be able to be told where the law stands on any issue really.

[Si Hunt]

For a pro-lifer, unusually I am pleased with this news. I think if people are certified terminally ill, of sound mind, and several medical experts confirm that their life is one of constant pain, then they should be allowed to die. If they want to, of course.

Si.

[Captain Tancredi]

To my mind the key issue is one of mental competence- if somebody has a diagnosis of terminal or degenerative illness but is otherwise mentally capable, then I don't see that the law should prevent that person from ending their life in a controlled and dignified manner- I'm thinking particularly here of an uncle of mine who died of cancer which took a year from diagnosis to death, and what he must have felt as a former self-made businessman to have to be taken to the toilet and so on. And if somebody is capable of expressing the wish to die, perhaps in front of a solicitor, then nobody should face prosecution for helping them.

It's understandable that we should think about the consequences for elderly people in (expensive) nursing homes, and that somebody under heavy medication to relieve the pain of serious illness might be particularly suggestible. In general I think the authorities haven't been keen to prosecute people who've helped loved ones to die, because there's no public interest issue- by definition, somebody who takes their husband or wife to Switzerland for assisted suicide is unlikely to reoffend afterwards- and in some ways it probably helps to have the grey area because it means that the police aren't bound to bring charges.

[Si Hunt]

Agreed. At the end of the day, each case is different and should be judged on its own merits. However, certain circumstances the law should allow for.

Si.

[Alex]

So basically, I haven't got a clue what the right thing to do about this is.

I have! Futurama style suicide booths is the way forward if you ask me. You'd have to pass some sort of lie detector to make sure you aren't being coerced, but bar that anyone should be able to take their own life. The world is over populated after all...

</incredibly controversial opinion>

[Andrew Curnow]

I suspect it'll be one of those rulings that bounces back and forth before any change in the law actually occurs - but I'm pleased for the people in this case, in that they now know the husband can go to Switzerland with the wife and not have to worry about the consequences (although I would say, on a purely personal level, that it will surely be a really awful journey back home on his own for the poor guy).

Not wanting to lower the tone, but every time I read about the Law Lords I can't help but picture Philip Madoc and co.

[shada pavlova]

I have! Futurama style suicide booths is the way forward if you ask me. You'd have to pass some sort of lie detector to make sure you aren't being coerced, but bar that anyone should be able to take their own life. The world is over populated after all...

They were introduced last year, weren't they?

"Perhaps I should take this matter to the LAAAAAAAAW LOOOOOOOOORDS?"

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I'm pleased for the people in this case, in that they now know the husband can go to Switzerland with the wife and not have to worry about the consequences.

This isn't necessarily the case. The director of public prosecution now has to clarify the circumstances that would lead to presecution, but hasn't actually done it yet so at the moment there is still no change. And when it IS set in stone it may turn out to be easiest to clarify by saying everyone will face prosecution. So she's celebrating a win, but really could end up shooting herself in the foot. Time will tell.

[MinaHarker]

It's not so much the pain that is the issue, it is the method of death.

MS slowly destroys muscle, causing it to stop working. Eventually the intercostal muscles that change the volume of the chest cavity fail, meaning that breathing is no longer possible. A person with MS faces the prospect of suffocating, slowly, conciously, with nothing able to help them.

THAT is what the fight is for, and I belive that no-one should have to go through something so horrendous. You wouldn't let a dog suffer that way, so why a human?

[Si Hunt]

It is somewhat ironic that actually because a dog's life is considered less worthy than a humans, they are usually spared such pain but we are not.

Si.