Vote totals:
Yes:
100%
No:
0%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
She is a fully competent adult and should be able to determine her own decisions without the interference of the state.
As a MS sufferer and the only person who is living her own life, she should be able to determine her own death. Clearly she has made a rational decision and the action in question is suicide. She is fully legally able to travel to a Swiss clinic and end her own life there by taking lethal drugs. However it is not her that will be committing an offence punishable by English law. It is her husband, as her emotional supporter and companion, who will face 14 years imprisonment upon re-entering England. It is unreasonable to suggest that she travel to her death alone and it is unreasonable to allow her husband to be punished for accompanying and supporting his wife.
An argument which is frequently brought up by the courts in similar cases is that of competency. It could be arued that Debbie is not fully competent to make a decision of this gravity because her disease is clouding her judgment. As such it should be for those reasonable officials i.e. judges who make the final decision as to whether her husband can aid and abett her suicide. Under section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, it will be an offence for Omar to assist Debbie’s suicide ad as such this law should be upheld.
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
It is hard enough for someone to go through the trauma of losing a loved one without the thought of an inevitable prison sentence looming over them.
For anyone who has lost someone close to them, or for anyone who fears it, it is understandable that Omar (Debbie Purdy’s husband) should not be punished at the same time as suffering the greatest emotional punishment of all time. She is the person who he thought he would spend the rest of his life with. However using the word “inevitable” in this context is wrong. None of the other 101 relatives who have travelled with their loved ones for fatal distribution of drugs have been charged in cases similar to this one (Woman loses assisted suicide case (2008) [online] available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7697200.stm. There may still be light at the end of the tunnel).
Arguably, it may be even harder after your loved ones death to think that you played a part in helping them die. Progressive diseases eventually kill the sufferer and although many sufferers prefer to determine their own death instead of being overcome by a disease, it is their decision to make. However, if relatives are then allowed to help their loved one die they may be teamed with both guilt and sadness after the death. The choice is for them to elect to help their loved one depart and cut their life short on their own terms (and break the law) or spend a few extra months with their loved one as they continue to battle the illess and let nature take its course.
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
Prisons are for criminals. The fact that her husband will, in law, be susceptible to imprisonment seems morally unjust.
Although in the eyes of the law, Debbie’s husband may be committing a criminal offence. He is not socially committing an offence. He is not forcing her death; he is merely abiding by her wishes and for him to potentially be imprisoned with people who have committed morally unjust crimes such as murder and manslaughter. Or those that have intentionally cause harm to others would be undeserved punishment.
A crime is a crime whether committed with good intentions or bad intentions. If a law is broken the consequences must be paid, otherwise there would be no point in having laws in existence.
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
Arguably assisted death occurs all the time.
Doctors in hospitals must determine life and death of patients throughout their careers. For example, limited resources and high costs of medicine means that doctors must inadvertently choose between patients and between who to offer life saving treatment. For example; between an elderly patient and a young patient.
A doctor making a medically informed choice can not be compared with someone who is emotionally attached to the person wishing to die. The situations are totally different. A doctors decision is one of necessity, whereas someone assisting suicide does not HAVE to make that decision.
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
It would be of economic benefit for those seeking voluntary death to receive it.
Even though this seems a cynical approach to take; Keeping Debbie alive against her wishes will cost money in treatment. Thus money that does not need to be spent on her and could be spent on another patient who wants the treatment. The NHS budget is severely stretched anyway and it should not be for extraneous individuals i.e. doctors and judges to keep a person alive against their wishes, unless of course that person it not competent to make the decision for themselves. That is clearly not applicable to this case.
Ecomonic factors should not influence medical decisions or the decisions made by judges. Although money is involved in all areas of life, it should not be the most influential factor in considering whether a person should be given medical treatment to keep them alive. This would be unconscionable.
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
Debbie is suffering from a disease that does not cloud her judgment.
By ruling that her husband may not be able to evade the legal consequences of assisted suicide, the judges have infringed on Debbie’s right to make decisions for herself. Autonomy for any person is a prized possession and it should not be thrown away lightly by those in powerful and authoritative positions.
Those in authoritative positions are also in objective positions and can make a more informed decision than those subjectively involved. As a result these decisions can be viewed as more reasonable and possibly even more valid.
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
If this case was allowed it would open floodgates for similar applicants.
The floodgate argument could easily be dispelled. If the courts allowed assisted suicide to be available in only exceptional circumstances this would both uphold the law on assisted suicide in most cases and also allow the law to be flexible and give leeway to some applicants and thus the law could be seen as morally just.
This case concerns amongst other things assisted suicide and the laws stance on this. In a far fetched scenario this would mean that if assisted suicide no longer became an offence, vulnerable classes of people would no longer be protected by the law. Penniless relatives who will benefit from wills could find new grounds that would allow them legally to “help” kill their relatives!
SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED DEBBIE PURDY’S HUSBAND TO HELP HER DIE?
The law in its unclear stance is no use to anyone.
It is not for the judges to make their own law. The High Court could only clarify the law as far as is permissible within the boundaries of the English "constitution". It is parliaments job to legislate and only they would be able to detrmine the law’s stance on assisted suicide. Therefore the High Court could not decide whether Omar would be commiting an offence or not.
Essentially the refusal of the court to clarify the status of those assisting suicide means that those innocently helping their loved ones to fulfil their dying wishes in a bid to die with dignity, will not know whether or not they are acting lawfully. And if not what the consequences of that unlawfulness will be. Not only is this unfair, but it also contrasts with a fundamental element of criminal law. That is, that judges and the legislature are not allowed to make retrospective criminal law. A person should not be punished if their actions did not constitute illegal action at the time the offence took place. More than this law needs to be accessible, foreseeable and legally certain otherwise it is unfair to assert it over the individual concerned.