The law should preserve life

At the beginning of this New Year we should be thinking about the steps we can take that will challenge our society to value the vulnerable and people with disabilities more. The last thing we should be contemplating - especially at a time of economic hardship - is changing our laws so that those with a terminal illness, who believe they are a burden, are more likely to feel pressured into ending their lives. This, however, despite all the talk about safeguards, is the real danger presented by the Falconer Report also published today.

When one allows for the unintended consequences - which international experience makes plain cannot be satisfactorily addressed through safeguards - the truth is that whilst the current law may not be perfect, it is the best show in town.

As the eminent lawyer, Lord Carlile QC, puts it we have "a hard law, with a kind face".

On the one hand, as a “hard law” the current legislation makes it plain that helping someone to commit suicide is not acceptable and it thereby crucially protects vulnerable people, who believe they are a burden, from feeling they must avail themselves of a state-sanctioned means of hastening their demise.

On the other hand, its “kind face” means prosecutors have flexibility about whether or not to bring charges.

Some might argue that the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring charges in the 31 assisted suicides cases brought before him since his guidance on the subject was published demonstrates that our current arrangements are not working. However, when one appreciates that a change in the law along the lines suggested by Falconer is likely to result in approximately 885 assisted suicides of vulnerable people in the UK (the figure would rise to some 13,000 if we allowed for assisted suicide and euthanasia as in Holland), the merits of our current arrangements become abundantly clear.

These points should have come through clearly but sadly the whole Falconer ‘Commission’ process has been flawed from the start.

First, the findings are the result of a so-called Commission that is completely unbalanced.

Membership: It includes 9 commissioners who are known to be in favour of legalising assisted suicide and 2 who are not against legalising assisted suicide!

Chairmanship: Far from being objective, Lord Falconer was the last person in the UK to try to liberalise the law on assisted suicide through his amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill. Asking Charles Falconer to chair a review of assisted suicide is a bit like asking Tony Benn to chair a review on the future of the monarchy!

Conception: It was suggested by the single issue campaign group Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which exists for the purpose of legalising assisted suicide.

Funding: Its funding has come from two wealthy advocates for changing the law to allow assisted suicide.

In light of the above concerns, the credibility of the Falconer ‘Commission’ process has been widely called into question, including through a very critical 5 point British Medical Association resolution. Many bodies, including CARE, refused to give evidence to the ‘Commission’ because of its flawed composition.

Second, the formation of the ‘Commission’ somewhat smacks of desperation. The only reason for establishing it is that the two genuinely independent parliamentary Committees that have exhaustively considered the evidence both recommended no change in the law. For instance, the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Committee covered some 246 Hansard columns and two volumes of 744 pages and 116 pages respectively. Moreover, all parliamentary attempts to change the law in the way that Falconer desires have failed (by 148-100, May 2006, and 194-141, July 2009). The last attempt at legalisation in Scotland also resulted in a heavy defeat (85-16) for Margo Macdonald MSP’s Bill in November 2010.

Quite apart from anything else, the very public and very blatant flaws in the Falconer ‘Commission’ process should make parliament extremely cautious about embracing any aspects of its findings. When one looks at the specifics of the proposals in light of the inevitable unintended consequences for the vulnerable, though, it is clear that this is a report that should never be acted on. Let us start 2012 by considering what legislative changes can be made that challenge our society to value the vulnerable and disabled more not less, that make our society more humane not more dangerous for those on the margins.


Nola Leach is Chief Executive of CARE. Find out more at www.care.org.uk