Dying with dignity
"In the past three years, I have accompanied three terminally-ill individuals from the UK to Switzer
By Michael Irwin Published 20 February 2009
One has to greatly admire Debbie Purdy's persistence in going through the British legal system in order to protect her husband if, when she becomes terminally ill (ie. likely to die within six months), he accompanies her to the Dignitas clinic in Zurich should she choose an assisted suicide.
Now suffering from multiple sclerosis for several years, and in a wheelchair since 2001, Debbie, 45, from Bradford, lost her Appeal Court case yesterday.
She had been hoping to get greater clarification on the present law regarding assisted suicide. Under the 1961 Suicide Act, which decriminalised suicide in England and Wales (it did not apply to Scotland because, in strictly legal terms, suicide was never a crime there!), if someone aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, that person could be jailed for up to 14 years. And, Debbie Purdy wants to protect her husband from that possibility.
The Appeal Court judges said that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) could not adopt a "case-specific policy in the kind of certain terms sought by Ms. Purdy"; that it had to be Parliament which decided if the law should change; but, in what was a rather surprising comment, they added that even if a defendant in an assisted suicide case were to be convicted, a court could decide that no sanction was appropriate. That last compassionate statement seems, in my view, to have justified all that Debbie has been striving to achieve.
During the past decade, at least 100 individuals have travelled from the UK to Switzerland for an assisted suicide. While several relatives or close friends, upon their return to Britain, have been questioned by the police about what happened, no one has yet been prosecuted. And, it is important to note that not all those who have ended their lives in Switzerland were terminally ill - such as Daniel James who died in the Dignitas clinic last September (he had been severely paralysed following a rugby scrum injury eighteen months earlier).
Obviously, in a strictly legal sense, it is a crime to assist someone to go to Switzerland for an assisted suicide. I have a Home Office letter, written to a friend of mine in February 2007, which says "In our view, though the point is untested in the courts, an offence (under the Suicide Act) is committed even where the suicide occurs abroad if the aiding, abetting etc. takes place in this country". This letter adds that it is up to the DPP to decide whether or not to prosecute in individual cases, "taking into account all the circumstances including the public interest in bringing a prosecution". But, surely if a law is not enforced fairly and often, it will eventually become a non-law?
I am certain that Debbie Purdy's husband, Omar Puente, has nothing to fear if, one day, they travel together to Zurich, to Dignitas. In the past three years, I have accompanied three terminally-ill individuals from the UK to Switzerland, and witnessed their dignified and peaceful assisted suicides there, with the help of Dignitas. I have been interviewed by the police about these trips, and reports have been sent to the DPP - but nothing further has happened. Therefore, as I was not even related to any of those I helped, I am sure that Omar Puente, acting as a dutiful husband - and most unlikely to repeat his "crime" - will not have any problem, from the police, upon his return.
If Debbie Purdy wants further support, I am prepared to travel with her and her husband when they go to Zurich. Other campaigners who seek to change the law may also want to accompany her? Perhaps there is "safety in numbers"? For my first trip to Zurich, seven people helped the terminally-ill lady to make the journey. On my last trip, four were involved. The DPP is most unlikely to want to put a crowd in the dock.
Today, legalised doctor-assisted suicide, with very adequate safeguards, is possible in Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the American states of Oregon and Washington. The law should be changed in the UK (80 per cent of the public wants this to happen). Are we, in this country, so different from the Belgians, the Dutch, the Swiss, or those who live in Oregon or Washington State?
Michael Irwin is former chairman of Dignity in Dying
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


2 comments
The right to die is the ultimate human right, and should so be respected. Naturally there must be safeguards against 'pressure' on people to die, but this could be done through a mandatory consultation with your GP, who would only deny access to death if they felt 'pressure' was involved.
There is an old saying that 'hard cases make bad law' and this is one area where the suffering and/or point of view of a few must not be allowed to determine the protection that is afforded to all.
There are very good reasons for an attempt to place legal restraint and sanction on the manner in which we die. It might be argued that the fact that a very few people are willing to go through with 'assisted suicide' in the face of the legal situation, and time and again are not prosecuted, or not convicted is a healthy situation. There is active legal oversight, but it is largely conducted with a degree of compassion and understanding of the situation people find themmselves in, even if for the vast majority those situations are not so acute.
Changing the law so that the conduct of the rare and extreme guides the conduct of the commonplace and 'normal' could, and probably would, be an extremely risky undertaking. A significant proportion of the population who are currently 'protected' (at least in theory), by the current regime could find themselves in far more vulnerable and dangerous circumstances, given that there are people willing to act malignly and irresponsibly towards others.
Having said that I would not necessarily argue for the status quo, but I would certainly argue for a very carefully thought through appraisal of what change is genuinely necessary, along with a great attempt to take account of the law of unintended consequences.