Critically assess whether the Suicide Act 1961 should be amended to allow physician assisted self-destruction.
The Suicide Act 1961 amended the jurisprudence of England and Waless and professed that the act of self-destruction is non a condemnable offense. However, subdivision 2 ( 1 ) of the current statute law makes it a statutory offense to“aid, abet or advocate or procure the self-destruction of another.”[ 1 ] Therefore the condemnable act carries a sentence of up to fourteen old ages ‘ imprisonment for helping another to perpetrate self-destruction. This subdivision of the statute law normally relates and incorporates to all instances of aided self-destruction including Physician assisted self-destruction ( PAS ) . Nevertheless there has been a myriad of attempts to legalize PAS ; normally, by agencies of private members’ measure in the House of Lords nevertheless none have been successful yet. Lord Joffe, a outstanding protagonist of PAS, proposed the ‘Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill’ three times, in order to supply the chance of PAS to persons who were critically sick, nevertheless the possibility for the current statute law to be amended was opposed in 2006 by 148 ballots to 100 [ 2 ] . However, whether the Suicide Act should be reformed to allow PAS has proven to be slightly exciting to many legal theoreticians and modern-day faculty members for decennaries.
The term ‘Physician Assisted Suicide’ relates to a circumstance by which a doctor deliberately provides a intervention to a knowing and capable patient on her or his petition. Even though in the instance of such an event, the agencies to the decease of the person is self-administered, the physician’s function as an agent is in breach of s.2 of the Suicide Act 1961. [ 3 ] Nevertheless the American and European legal powers portion common rules sing such cases, which insinuate that PAS is considered to be a moral wrong and an offense of condemnable nature on a cosmopolitan graduated table. [ 4 ] Presently, there have been outstanding legal proceedings in America and Canada in chase of disputing the ‘universal belief’ that PAS is a condemnable offense. Harmonizing to the factual and moral appraisals of PAS alongside farther instances in the medical field, the patient’s decease has a correlativity with the Actus Reus or skip executed by the doctor. In instances as such, it is clear that the place of human rights’ law [ 5 ] in respects to medical jurisprudence is slightly controversial, therefore motivating the demand for the current statute law of PAS in the UK to reform.
Prior to legalizing PAS, some would reason that ethical and spiritual evidences should be taken into history. For case a common ethical construct whereby many emphasise moral significance to PAS, is the fact that it does non straight kill the patient and the patient is merely assisted. However, In Williams’ ‘Intention and Causation in Medical Non-Killing’ [ 6 ] , Williams argues that in both cases doctors are bring oning the agencies to decease. Furthermore, she puts frontward an oblique option ; the formation of an identifiable offense in which she calls a ‘medical mercy- killing’ whereby the peculiar circumstance, purpose and the patient’s consent should be considered every bit. Williams draws attending to the differences between an skip and an act in relation to the executing of PAS. Nevertheless she maintains that such footings should non be manipulated because it could “absolve medical professionals from condemnable liability.” [ 7 ] Harmonizing to Williams, the jurisprudence shapers are blameworthy of construing a physician’s backdown of an effectual intervention from the patient as “falling outside the general legal prohibition against calculated active killing” [ 8 ] ; therefore the backdown of the good intervention is non simply an skip but could be perceived as a condemnable offense as decease is an immediate consequence. Thus Williams is concerned that the categorization and word picture of an ‘omission’ and an ‘act’ , “rules out the signii¬?cance of purpose and causing from those activities perceived to be omissions.” [ 9 ] Albeit an skip is a construct in condemnable jurisprudence which concerns the Actus Reus of a offense and non the ‘intention’ , In the instance of Airedale Trust V Bland [ 10 ] the House of Lords did admit that the doctor intended to retreat the eating tubing to stop the life of his enduring patient. However in respects to the instance, It is worthy of note that the jurisprudence permits an skip taking to the patient’s decease whereby the patient has given consent to stop the intervention. Furthermore, the jurisprudence besides enforces upon the fact that the court’s blessing is needed if the patient is in a ‘Permanent Vegetative State’ . Therefore one could climax that if a doctor can in fact omit to giving intervention so in this specific context, the Suicide Act should be amended to allow PAS.
However, the amendment of the Suicide Act could perchance sabotage some ethical and spiritual rules. The holiness of human life is a cardinal moral statement against PAS which upholds ethical rules. The impression that life is sacred is so an issue raised in the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill ;“life is God-given and can non in effect be terminated by others, even on request.”[ 11 ] Hence this ethical construct puts frontward the statement that every person deserves to be valued irrespective of the hurting or experience that they are traveling through, as the human life is an indispensable good and non to be treated as a agency to an terminal. Thus this construct forbids the violent death of a patient since it’s non a legitimate defense mechanism. Nevertheless, atheists and other non-classical theists maintain that there is besides a secularist attack of the construct of holiness of life. For case, Professor Glover defined the rule as“an absolute barrier, an absolute prohibition, non derived from a spiritual beginning on the knowing pickings of guiltless human life”[ 12 ] in which he understood to be similar to the spiritual and moral construct. Indeed the holiness of human life seems to be a cosmopolitan construct, therefore it highlights the possibility of a broad graduated table resistance if PAS is legalised. Furthermore in the Bill, Rev Gill supported the thought that the amendment of the act could ensue in a national turbulence,he maintained that“to secular people life is still given, it is given by the people ; you did non contrive your life. Human life is in that sense particular and to be treated with attention… whether we are spiritual or not.”[ 13 ] Indeed, the holiness of human life seems to be a polemic issue in respects to the moral and spiritual sphere within society. Therefore if the bulk of the population consider that there is a moral responsibility to continue the sacredness of life, so the legalization of PAS could perchance take to a societal turbulence.
However, it can be perceived that the holiness of human life affects the implicit in picks that concern the human liberty. The cardinal construct of liberty is the right for an person to specify the boundaries that define his life. To the tenet of justness, the value for the patient’s liberty is regarded as indispensable to those would wish the Suicide Act to be amended to allow PAS. In some cases an person is incapable of taking their ain life ; therefore the demand for medical expertness of a doctor in order to decease painlessly is necessary. In the instance of Pretty [ 14 ],it was maintained that Pretty had the ‘right to life’ due to the fact that in Article 2 of the ECHR [ 15 ] ,“Everyone ‘s right to life shall be protected by jurisprudence. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally” .[ 16 ] Thus she argued that the Courts should non disown her husband’s aid in her chase to decease as the Article protects her autonomies but besides the ‘right to life’ . The Article seemed to recognize that persons like Pretty could take whether to stop their life. In respects to this instance, it can be argued that a accepting patient should hold the freedom to take whether a physician shall help them to decease. Nonetheless, Richard Posner takes a matter-of-fact position in relation to the human liberty ; he maintains that“A prohibition against helping self-destruction can non be justified on this land in instances in which the individual who wants to stop his life is incapable of making so without assistance” .[ 17 ] Hence, in exceeding state of affairss, the holiness of human life seems to move as an hindrance to persons like Pretty because her liberty is slightly appropriated. [ 18 ] Therefore, by legalizing PAS individuals’ are treated as independent individuals, therefore the freedom of pick to decease in self-respect is valued and respected.
However, without rigorous guidelines and precautions, legalizing PAS could take to many complicated jobs. In some cases, the rule of liberty undermines the holiness of human life as liberty is non regarded as a moral absolute. It is important to mensurate the individual’s freedom against what is rational because the rule of liberty has no cosmopolitan evidences due to its subjectiveness. For case, Kant maintains that rational agents should be treated as an terminal to themselves due to spiritual beliefs that the human organic structure belongs to a Godhead being, hence a“Mancan non hold the power to dispose of his life.”[ 19 ] Hence, Kant lays great importance on reason over leading facie duties. However, harmonizing to the Utilitarian theory, an result or motivation should profit the bulk without the intervention of one’s beliefs or moral criterions because every action should use to“the greatest good for the greatest figure of people”. [ 20 ] Even though Kant extremely values the human liberty he considers the responsibility to be a rational act because an person should be good informed about the medical process in order to be able to establish a determination on a cosmopolitan rule ( ‘thou shalt non kill’ ) and non on their opportunism. It is worthy of note that human life is besides a cardinal good as opposed to an instrumental good, therefore being a value in itself than a agency to an terminal. Albeit the construct of holiness of life values human life and reinforces a physician’s responsibility of attention to the patient, the Law shapers should concentrate on a moral construct whereby the bulk will be able to associate to and grok. Indeed, if the rule of liberty is a universally accepted construct amongst members of this society so PAS should be permitted because the theory respects the impression that every person deserves the right to life and the right to decease.
However there are practical statements which expose the complication which could originate if the act is to be amended to allow PAS. The construct of slippery incline suggests that by allowing PAS, doctors will bit by bit travel off from the criterions and rules which they are supposed to continue, therefore necessarily taking to nonvoluntary PAS. For case, in topographic points where PAS is legal, such as in the Netherlands, it has been documented that“…only 53 per centum of these instances did the patient of all time express involvement in having euthanasia.”[ 21 ] Surely, it is clear that if PAS is legalised, the opportunities of nonvoluntary PAS is far more than probably. In support of this contention, in Dr Ezekiel’s critical essay he reports that in“15 per centum of mercy killing instances, patients were non involved in the determination to stop their lives, sometimes even when they were competent”. [ 22 ] As a consequence, it is empirical that PAS could be practised irrespective of the patient ‘s consent. It is even more distressing that such cases occur when the action is illegal and the punishments are of such badness in the Netherlands, with relentless claims of“explicit and established safeguards”[ 23 ] relieving nonvoluntary Pas.To an extent, the slippery incline statement high spots prevalent jobs that society would hold to cover with if the self-destruction act is amended to legalize PAS. However, many have criticised the slippery incline as a false belief because it makes an assuming spring to an irrational decision. Almagore suggests that if specific guidelines and precautions are set in topographic point so PAS would profit those who are in alleviative attention and terminally ill. [ 24 ] Nonetheless, in his treatment he outlines the dangers of allowing PAS. Almagore elucidates that PAS should be practised by experient doctors who have known the patient for a long period of clip otherwise physician’s will be guilty of doing irrational opinions on instances ; he uses the illustration of Dr Kevorkian who assisted ;“44 people in one province ; 15 who were terminally sick and 29 who suffered from chronic conditions”. [ 25 ] From this survey, one can easy pull attending to the unsafe effects of PAS if the jurisprudence is amended to allow it without any effectual precautions.
Not merely does the slippery incline statement highlight the correlativity of voluntary and nonvoluntary PAS, but it besides accentuates the grade of hazard to vulnerable patients. Such lives could necessarily be ended against their liberty and when there are alternate methods to alleviate agony, it could be more expensive than the disposal of the drug. For case, harmonizing to Almagore, Kevorkian was“unqualified and was disinterested in analyzing patients and analyzing their cause of unwellness and assisted those who were misdiagnosed.”[ 26 ] Permiting PAS would therefore consequence in some Doctors favoring other hurting relieving and cost effectual factors. In add-on to the slippery incline statement, every bit good as turn toing issues such as the discourtesy, debasement and disdain of the value of human life, it besides focuses on concerns environing the efficiency on both cost and clip. In relation to the economic analysis sing the creative activity of such statute law, the Kaldor-Hicks efficiency [ 27 ] illustrates that PAS maximises wealth as it releases beds in infirmaries and reduces the government’s disbursement on alleviative attention and medicine for terminally sick patients, therefore bring forthing greater net benefits. However, the Pareto efficiency theory insinuates that PAS does non needfully do one party better off [ 28 ] as there is a ‘Pareto optimal’ allotment of resorts. The result of the action executed by the doctor is sufficient as there is an every bit sufficient compensation and besides improves the public assistance of the province without the want of the other. These theories of efficiency are surely hard to use since nonvoluntary PAS would non be Pareto efficient or moral as there is an sole focal point on bring forthing greater net benefits for the bulk. Therefore, the slippery incline statement is beyond doubt sound because if the legislative assemblies take a Kaldor-Hicks attack so certainly nonvoluntary PAS would to some length go a sensible agency.
Indeed the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill was determined on allowing assisted suicide merely with the facilitation of a Doctor, it was slightly clear based on grounds that other provinces carried out nonvoluntary assisted self-destruction after the statute law was passed for PAS. Nevertheless, harmonizing to the Attorney-General it was evident that,“the traditional attitude of the common jurisprudence was to reprobate suicide until the jurisprudence was changed by the Suicide Act 1961”. [ 29 ] It seems to the bulk that though the aided self-destruction Laws in the Netherlands and Belgium specify that doctors entirely are permitted to help with self-destruction, the documented ill-practises executed by these Doctors creates a colossal challenge to the legislative assemblies in England and Wales. However when statute laws as such are amended many would reason that merely supplying intervention with the consent of the patient does non mistreat an individual’s liberty. However implementing precautions for PAS would be complicated as explored in the slippery incline. Even so, the rule of liberty takes into consideration the really affair of an individual’s freedom of pick a deeply serious virtuousness and right and one that necessitates a singular trade of justification.
Airedale Trust v.Bland[ 1993 ] 1 All ER 821 [ HL ]
R. ( on the application of Pretty ) V DPP [ 2001 ] UKHL 61
European Convention on Human Rights
Suicide Act 1961
Books and Reports
- ‘The Concept of Pareto Efficiency’ , & A ; lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //pages.uoregon.edu/cjellis/441/441notes.pdf & A ; gt ; last accessed 15 December 2013,
- 2007 )
- Almagor R C,“A Circumscribed Plea for Voluntary Physician- Assisted Suicide”, ( 2000 ) 913Annalss of the New York Academy of Sciences127
- Elliott and Quinn‘English Legal System’( 14Thursdayedition, Pearson 2013 )
- Emanuel E J,‘What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physician-Assisted Suicide? ’( 1999 ) 109 Ethics | & A ; lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/EMANUELwhatisthebenefit.pdf & A ; gt ; last accessed 12 December 2013
- Gorsuch N M,‘The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia’( Princeton University Press 2006 ) , Ch. 7
- Kant I, ‘The issue of Suicide’– & A ; lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //philosophia.uncg.edu/sites/default/files/PHI301metivier/pdf/Kant-Suicide.pdf & A ; gt ; pp. 147-154 last accessed 12 December 2013
- Kennedy and Grubb A, ‘Medical Law’ ( 2nd edition, Butterworths 1994 )
- Posner R,“The Tanner lectures on Human Values- Euthanasia and Health Care: Two Essaies on the Policy Dilemmas of Aging and Old Age”& A ; lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/p/Posner96.pdf & A ; gt ; last accessed 14 December 2013, ( Yale university 1994 )
- The Select Committee| ‘Assisted Diing for the Terminally Ill Bill’|HL| ( 2004-05 ) | HL Paper 86I |& A ; lt ;hypertext transfer protocol: //www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldasdy/86/8604.htm & A ; gt ; Last accessed 15 December 2013
- Williams G,‘Intention and Causation in Medical Non-Killing: The Impact ofCondemnable Law Concepts on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide’( Routledge-Cavendish 2007 )
- Stone R,‘Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights’( 6Thursdayedition, Oxford University Press 2006 )
- Jackson E, ‘Medical Law Text, Cases and Materials’ ( 3rdedition, Oxford university imperativeness 2013 )
- Stauch M and Wheat K with Tingle J, ‘Text, Cases and Materials on Medical Law’ ( 3rdEdition, Routledge Cavendish 2006 )
- Slapper G and Kelly D,‘English Legal System’ -2013-2014 ( Routledge 2013 )
- Molenaar J C,‘A Report from the Netherlands’[ 1987 ] Bioethicss