This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/25/assisted-suicide-ban-doctors-supreme-court
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Assisted suicide campaigners fail to get supreme court to overturn ban | Assisted suicide campaigners fail to get supreme court to overturn ban |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Campaigners for the right to assisted suicide have failed in an attempt to overturn the ban on doctors helping to end the lives of their patients. | Campaigners for the right to assisted suicide have failed in an attempt to overturn the ban on doctors helping to end the lives of their patients. |
| But a majority of supreme court justices ruled that judges did have the constitutional authority to declare that the law on suicide was incompatible with human rights legislation. | But a majority of supreme court justices ruled that judges did have the constitutional authority to declare that the law on suicide was incompatible with human rights legislation. |
| The legal challenges were brought by Paul Lamb, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident and now requires 24-hour care, Jane Nicklinson, the widow of the right-to-die campaigner Tony Nicklinson, and a claimant known only as AM or Martin. | The legal challenges were brought by Paul Lamb, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident and now requires 24-hour care, Jane Nicklinson, the widow of the right-to-die campaigner Tony Nicklinson, and a claimant known only as AM or Martin. |
| By a majority of seven to two, the justices dismissed the claims brought by Nicklinson and Lamb. The court unanimously ruled against Martin's claim. | By a majority of seven to two, the justices dismissed the claims brought by Nicklinson and Lamb. The court unanimously ruled against Martin's claim. |
| Nine of the 12 justices of the supreme court considered the appeals, a sign of the legal sensitivities surrounding the claims. | Nine of the 12 justices of the supreme court considered the appeals, a sign of the legal sensitivities surrounding the claims. |
| Paul Lamb, 58, supported the case originally brought by Tony Nicklinson, a sufferer of "locked-in syndrome" who died in 2012, a week after losing his high court euthanasia battle. Their lawyers argued that the prohibition on assisted suicide in the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with their rights to respect for private and family life as contained in article 8 of the European convention on human rights. A defence of necessity, they maintained, exists making it lawful for a doctor to assist, or to have assisted, in the suicide of someone who has made a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end their lives but were unable to do so on their own. | Paul Lamb, 58, supported the case originally brought by Tony Nicklinson, a sufferer of "locked-in syndrome" who died in 2012, a week after losing his high court euthanasia battle. Their lawyers argued that the prohibition on assisted suicide in the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with their rights to respect for private and family life as contained in article 8 of the European convention on human rights. A defence of necessity, they maintained, exists making it lawful for a doctor to assist, or to have assisted, in the suicide of someone who has made a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end their lives but were unable to do so on their own. |
| Lamb experiences constant pain and is permanently on morphine. His condition is, under present medical knowledge, irreversible and he wishes to end his life with the assistance of a medical professional. He said after the judgment: "My first reaction was disappointment and I was angry hearing that it has not gone through. | Lamb experiences constant pain and is permanently on morphine. His condition is, under present medical knowledge, irreversible and he wishes to end his life with the assistance of a medical professional. He said after the judgment: "My first reaction was disappointment and I was angry hearing that it has not gone through. |
| "But it's a positive result. Parliament now have to face up to it and if they don't we can go back to the supreme court. While I'm still here I will be doing all I can. It's a step forward. It's better than nothing. Overall I'm proud of myself but it's not just for me but for all those who have been injured." | "But it's a positive result. Parliament now have to face up to it and if they don't we can go back to the supreme court. While I'm still here I will be doing all I can. It's a step forward. It's better than nothing. Overall I'm proud of myself but it's not just for me but for all those who have been injured." |
| Martin suffered a brain-stem stroke six years ago at the age of 43 that left him unable to speak and virtually unable to move. | Martin suffered a brain-stem stroke six years ago at the age of 43 that left him unable to speak and virtually unable to move. |
| He also wishes to kill himself, but is unable to do so without assistance from someone else. His legal challenge was slightly different. Friends and close family members who take individuals to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland for assisted dying no longer face being charged after changes introduced by the director of public prosecutions (DPP). Martin's friends and family, however, are unwilling to provide such help so he would have to rely on others. As the legal guidelines now stand, anyone else helping him would be at risk of criminal prosecution. | He also wishes to kill himself, but is unable to do so without assistance from someone else. His legal challenge was slightly different. Friends and close family members who take individuals to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland for assisted dying no longer face being charged after changes introduced by the director of public prosecutions (DPP). Martin's friends and family, however, are unwilling to provide such help so he would have to rely on others. As the legal guidelines now stand, anyone else helping him would be at risk of criminal prosecution. |
| Martin's lawyers said the DPP's guidelines should be rewritten because they interfere with his article 8 rights and make the consequences of a person encouraging or assisting his suicide "insufficiently foreseeable". | Martin's lawyers said the DPP's guidelines should be rewritten because they interfere with his article 8 rights and make the consequences of a person encouraging or assisting his suicide "insufficiently foreseeable". |
| In the court of appeal, the former lord chief justice Lord Judge had declared that such issues were a matter for parliament and "the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision". | In the court of appeal, the former lord chief justice Lord Judge had declared that such issues were a matter for parliament and "the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision". |
| Under the 1961 Suicide Act, helping someone end his or her life is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in jail. A number of organisations have intervened in the case including Dignity and Choice in Dying, the British Humanist Association and Care Not Killing. | Under the 1961 Suicide Act, helping someone end his or her life is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in jail. A number of organisations have intervened in the case including Dignity and Choice in Dying, the British Humanist Association and Care Not Killing. |
| The former lord chancellor Lord Falconer has introduced a private member's bill into the House of Lords aimed at legalising assisted dying. It would permit doctors to administer a lethal dose of drugs to terminally ill patients given less than six months to live. | The former lord chancellor Lord Falconer has introduced a private member's bill into the House of Lords aimed at legalising assisted dying. It would permit doctors to administer a lethal dose of drugs to terminally ill patients given less than six months to live. |
| Outside the supreme court in Westminster, Jane Nicklinson, whose husband launched the original legal challenge, said: "It's a mixed reaction. I'm disappointed that we didn't get the main points but I'm encouraged that they have said it's not down to parliament [alone], that judges can make decisions in a case like this. | Outside the supreme court in Westminster, Jane Nicklinson, whose husband launched the original legal challenge, said: "It's a mixed reaction. I'm disappointed that we didn't get the main points but I'm encouraged that they have said it's not down to parliament [alone], that judges can make decisions in a case like this. |
| "Parliament have been told they have to get a grip on this subject. Parliament don't want to discuss it. As Tony used to say: 'Politicians are a load of cowards who don't want to make a decision.'" | "Parliament have been told they have to get a grip on this subject. Parliament don't want to discuss it. As Tony used to say: 'Politicians are a load of cowards who don't want to make a decision.'" |
| Nicklinson said she supported Lord Falconer's private member's bill but that it did not go far enough because it only provided for those who are terminally ill. | Nicklinson said she supported Lord Falconer's private member's bill but that it did not go far enough because it only provided for those who are terminally ill. |
| She added: "Tony said that the terminally ill are the lucky ones because they know their lives are coming to an end." | She added: "Tony said that the terminally ill are the lucky ones because they know their lives are coming to an end." |
| Saimo Chahal, the solicitor from Bindman's law firm who represented Nicklinson and Lamb, said: "It's a good decision. It's fallen short of what we wanted it to be. | Saimo Chahal, the solicitor from Bindman's law firm who represented Nicklinson and Lamb, said: "It's a good decision. It's fallen short of what we wanted it to be. |
| "It's disappointing that they haven't gone so far as to declare [the Suicide Act] incompatible with human rights law. But they have given a clear message to parliament that it must review the ban on assisted suicide and the judges have said they may be minded to make a declaration next time around. | "It's disappointing that they haven't gone so far as to declare [the Suicide Act] incompatible with human rights law. But they have given a clear message to parliament that it must review the ban on assisted suicide and the judges have said they may be minded to make a declaration next time around. |
| "It creates a national debate and a necessity for parliament to look at it. Parliament must consider this group of people who have suffered catastrophic injury and who have a settled intention to end their lives." | "It creates a national debate and a necessity for parliament to look at it. Parliament must consider this group of people who have suffered catastrophic injury and who have a settled intention to end their lives." |
| Chahal said they would consider taking an appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. | Chahal said they would consider taking an appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. |
| • This article was amended on 25 June 2014. The original subheading wrongly stated that justices had ruled that judges did not have the authority to declare the law incompatible with European human rights legislation. In fact, they ruled that judges did have that authority. |