Right to die?

Abstract

Medicine changes—not just in the accumulation of scientific knowledge but in the responsibility the profession has to acknowledge the expectations of society and adjust our attitudes and behaviour accordingly. Just as rigid opposition to all change is wrong-headed, so too is uncritical bending in the breeze of public opinion on matters of high ethical and clinical complexity. One such area where society is said to be changing and where, in turn, the medical profession may perceive a pressure to change, is that of assisted dying and euthanasia. Hardly a week goes by—at least in the British press—without the subject being aired. Reform is called for, of our laws relating to euthanasia, and of the position of medicine and of the medical ‘establishment’ (often seen as a pejorative phrase in itself). The progressive media argue with a single voice in favour of change. Commonly, such press coverage concentrates on one individual, of his or her story of suffering, desire to die or be killed, and consequent battle with ‘the system’. One such person, a sufferer with multiple sclerosis, is Ms Debbie Purdy. In 2008, Ms Purdy, anxious about the consequences of asking her husband to help her travel abroad for legal euthanasia, should she so choose in the future, requested the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales to set out the circumstances in which her husband could be prosecuted. The Director of Public Prosecutions refused her request, a decision ratified in the Court of Appeal, but then turned over in her further appeal to the House of Lords. Mr Keir Starmer QC was therefore required ‘to prepare an offence-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances which he would take into account when deciding, in cases such as Ms Purdy’s, whether or not to prosecute’. …