THE Church of England has commended changes to policy for prosecutors on assisted suicide, published on Thursday of last week by Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
“The DPP has highlighted compassion in his guidelines, and he has introduced clarity in the application of the law prohibiting assisted suicide. We believe this ought to bring an end to calls for a change in the law,” a statement said.
The removal of terminal illness, disability, and degenerative physical conditions from the list of factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether or not to prosecute illustrates a policy that Mr Starmer said was now more focused on the acts and motivation of the suspect. “What it does is to provide a clear framework for prosecutors to decide which cases should proceed to court and which should not.”
The C of E statement said: “These guidelines do not provide blanket immunity from prosecution, nor do they give prior permission to break the law. It is right that there is no clear line drawn which will allow anybody assisting a suicide to know in advance whether they will be prosecuted. These guidelines are intended to weigh a complex set of different factors which, of their nature, can only be assessed after the fact, not before it.”
It continued: “We also recognise that, in certain, restricted circumstances, prosecution may not be the most appropriate way of responding to assisted suicide. The DPP’s guidelines reflect this even though we do not agree with all of them as we made clear in our submission during the consultation process.”
The statement praised recognition of the “pressures that spouses and sole carers have to live with, and the influence that this may bring to bear on their decision-making. . . We view as a positive step the inclusion of health professionals who assist suicide in the list of factors favouring prosecution.”
Dignity in Dying, a pro-euthanasia lobby group, hailed the guidelines as “a victory for common sense and compassion”, and “a significant breakthrough for choice and control at the end of life. Critically, the guidelines recognise the difference between assisting someone to die out of compassion, at their request, and a malicious self-serving act which results in the death of another.”
Care Not Killing, a UK-based alliance of 50 organisations opposed to euthanasia, also welcomed the guidance. “Our main concern was that the interim guidelines singled out as a group those who were disabled or ill, thereby affording them less protection than other people under the law. We are very glad this has been removed,” a statement said.
The alliance emphasised: “There are still some flaws and problems which will need attention, such as how a compassionate suspect’s motives are to be determined in practice. The test of these guide-lines will be their application in practice.”
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, the Most Revd Peter Smith, also welcomed the revised guidelines. The Law Lords had given the DPP “a near-impossible task”, but had clearly listened very carefully to, and taken account of, the many representations, he said.
“Our particular concerns were that the interim guidelines gave less protection under the law to disabled or seriously ill people, and to those who had a history of suicide attempts and were likely to try again. There also appeared to be a presumption that a spouse or close relative would always act simply out of compassion, and never from selfish motives. These factors have been removed from the new guidelines, which now give greater protection to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.”
But the Archbishop’s endorsement was described as “very disturbing” by Peter Tully, a spokesman for the RC anti-euthanasia group SPUC Pro-Life. “It seems he may be suggesting that disabled people are better protected now than they were before the interim guidelines were issued in September,” Mr Tully said.
“The final guidelines certainly appear to have eliminated some of the worst aspects of the interim guidelines, but [they] retain many damaging elements. [They] fail to mention relevant factors from the general Code for Crown Prosecutors, which tells prosecutors that
a victim’s disability or vulnerability are factors that should weigh in favour of a prosecution. The element of implicit discrimination is more subtle but it is still there.”
The hospice movement has been the Church’s greatest gift to the country in the past 50 years, the Bishop of Bradford, the Rt Revd David James, told his diocesan synod in the wake of the publication of the guidelines. “They provide care holistically and accept death as intrinsic to life — kind and gentle death. This is where to come if you really want to die with dignity,” he said.