It was sad news this week that Tony Nicklinson, the man with locked-in syndrome who recently lost his High Court battle to end his life his own way, died after refusing treatment for pneumonia. It was sad because he wanted to end his life on his own terms and was refused permission to do that by the court; on the other hand, he did, in the end, die quickly with his family around him which is perhaps all any of us can ask for.
During his High Court case Mr Nicklinson sought assurance that it would not be unlawful for a doctor to assist him to die, which is contrary to the current law which prevents assisted suicide or euthanasia. While having the deepest sympathy for his predicament, and that of others in his situation, I have to agree with the judges in this matter.
The three judges said that "it is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed", and that it would "usurp the proper role of Parliament". This is correct. No amount of jumping up and down by euthanasia campaigners can change that.
In this country we are ruled by both common law and civil law. Civil law is that prescribed by Acts of Parliament, while common law is that made by judges. Common law mostly relates to the relationships between people and the responsibilities they have towards each other. For example, the tort of negligence is common law. It started with a judge saying that, broadly, companies have a duty of care towards their customers. No sensible person would disagree with that, and because the case was in the House of Lords, every other court in the land was then bound to apply the same principle. The law was then refined, case by case, until we have it as it stands today, but if there is a new case, especially one that goes to the Supreme Court, it may change.
This is a good system. It means that a lot of the law that governs the rules of how we treat each other, under which we may seek compensation when those rules are breached, constantly evolves and remains relevant. However, criminal law, handled by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, is mandated by Parliament because a criminal offence is considered to be an offence against society and each one of us, and the offender may have their liberty taken away from them if found guilty.
Thus all criminal law in the UK is civil law; the judges must apply the rules as they have been laid down by Parliament and they do not invent them. They do have leeway in construing the law - sometimes it is unclear, and sometimes a situation arises that was not foreseen by Parliament - but they cannot change it.
In Tony Nicklinson's case, the law is quite clear, and assisted suicide is considered to be murder. There are good reasons for this, not least the protection of vulnerable people. It would be irresponsible in the extreme to change the law without putting safeguards in place, establishing strict criteria for when euthanasia is permissible, and prescribing punishments for those who transgress. A simple court ruling that Mr Nicklinson's doctor would not be prosecuted for murder for helping him to die would set a precedent without creating any legal structure.
In addition, this is such a contentious matter that it is quite incorrect for three judges to make that decision. We did not vote for those judges and their opinions should not decide the criminal law of our country. It is for our elected representatives, our Parliament, to change the law on murder. Some people think it is wrong to allow suffering when it may be ended. Some people think that it is always wrong to end a life. Who is right? Neither, and both, of course, like always. But to change the present system without a vote by our elected MPs, without a debate on the benefits and problems, without an Act that lays down a structure in which assisted suicide would operate - that would most definitely be wrong.
I am wholly in support of the law being changed on this matter, and I wish that we had a government with a few more balls that might legislate on assisted suicide, but for the meantime we are stuck with the system we have. And that's a shame for everyone in the same boat as Tony Nicklinson.
No comments:
Post a Comment