Yes, it’s a controversial subject, talking about stuff like euthanasia/ assisted suicide, so it was obviously a toss-up for which flippant song title I would use as the title of the post. In the end I went with the song best known as the theme from M*A*S*H, although I did also consider Ozzy’s Suicide Solution and Megadeth’s album Youthanasia.

So what’s this about then?

Firstly, suicide usually isn’t painless. When I was a student, one of my friends encountered the body of a ‘jumper’, and was obviously somewhat affected by this. Then you’ve got people who jump in front of trains, potentially psychologically damaging the poor train driver who couldn’t do anything about it, and that’s without even flippantly mentioning the hundreds of passengers who have been delayed simply because someone wanted to make a public spectacle of themselves. And then, however it has been done, you have the pain and suffering inflicted upon those left behind.

But that’s all usually. It ain’t always so. The whole ‘assisted suicide’ bit starts to open a whole new can of worms.

My piscine friend the Goldfish has already covered the subject well in two posts, and I’ll summarise the main points I took from those articles here, to hopefully save making the same points again.

• Some people feel life is sacred and should not under any circumstances be deliberately ended early
• Some people note a difference between when death is the purpose of the treatment, and when the treatment (e.g. lots of painkiller to someone in lots of pain) is likely to hasten death but isn’t the purpose of it
• The quality of life issue: if someone perceives their quality of life to be deteriorating beyond what they feel is acceptable, is it okay to kill themselves?
• Failure to prevent (or to attempt to prevent) a likely suicide you are aware of can result in you being charged

My beliefs on suicide/euthanasia were partly formed through very personal reasons. My grandfather who had had a stroke, was forced to starve himself to death in order to end his life, because he wanted to remembered with a dignity that he did not believe that he any longer possessed in life.

My beliefs, then, as mentioned before are that:

I believe suicide is wrong, that it’s tragic, and that it’s a waste of human life, and I would always endeavour to convince someone that there is a better alternative, but ultimately I respect the rights of the individual to choose what they wish to do with their live.The Pickards: Suicites

The issue of voluntary euthanasia muddies the waters further; I have a great deal of sympathy for people who feel that their quality of life, or the pain they are in, has deteriorated to such a point that it is better for them to be dead. After all, if a loved pet is in severe pain, we are willing to end the suffering for the animal, so why not our relatives?

Of course, it becomes tricky when you start talking about how exactly you define ‘quality of life’. What may be sufficient quality for one person may not be for another.

It has recently been announced that no charges are to be brought over the assisted suicide of Daniel James in a Swiss clinic.

No charges will be brought over the death of a paralysed rugby player in a Swiss assisted suicide clinic.

Mark and Julie James were investigated by UK police after the death of son Daniel, 23, of Worcester, in September.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC said there was “sufficient evidence” to prosecute the couple. But he said their “fiercely independent son” had not been influenced by his parents and so charging them would not be in the public interest.

BBC News: No Charges over assisted suicide

This brings the question of what exactly is ‘the public interest’? In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions believes that these people have committed a crime, and that there is sufficient evidence to charge them with it, yet has chosen not to do so. Why?

You could argue it was one of compassion: they have suffered enough. Yet we also have a father charged
with causing his childrens’ death by dangerous driving. Surely he is suffering every bit as much — and yet it seen as being in the public interest to prosecute him? Note that wihle we might see these as different things, the law as it stands would take the standpoint that assisting a suicide is a crime, just as causing death by dangerous driving is a crime (although at this point I do not believe that guilt or innocence has been established).

I believe there are two reasons why the decision not to prosecute was taken. Firstly, it would presumably cost a large amount of public money to take this through to trial, and when as the Director of Public Prosecutions, the most likely outcome is a small fine or a discharge, what is the point?

Secondly, there is a risk that the sentence would not be so light (assuming they had been found guilty). There is a risk that someone could face up to 14 years imprisonment for assisting a suicide, although prosecutors are reluctant to press for is.

This is the key point. Why are prosecutors reluctant to press for this? Is it because they believe it is wrong? Maybe. In which case, why not look at changing the law?

And that, I believe, is the key point. If someone such as the parents of Daniel James were sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, there would be such a public clamour against it that the law would be changed. Whereas if they make the decision not to prosecute, the law remains as it is — with a 14 year maximum tariff as a hefty deterrent — provided that no-one is actually prosecuted for it.

In the Daniel James case, I personally believe that he has the right to have his life ended (and have help in doing so) if that is what he genuinely wants. But, as my piscine chum pointed out, this does raise the question of disability. There are plenty of disabled people who live full, worthwhile lives and yet don’t have the movement, or some other thing, that the rest of us take for granted.

Daniel James was paralysed from the chest down. He believed this to be a second-class existence which was intolerable. While I believe that ultimately only he could decide this for himself, it does somehow imply that anyone else who does not have the use of their limbs is having a second-class existence.

Not something that generally sits well with disability groups — there are adaptions out there that would enable someone in Daniel’s condition to browse the web, to create their own websites and so on. So being quadraplegic doesn’t mean that you can’t contribute.

Ultimately however, I believe it is right that it’s Daniel’s decision. It is right that his parents weren’t prosecuted. I think it is wrong however that Debbie Purdy has to battle the courts so that she can have some peace of mind that, if her life becomes intolerable and she wants to end it, her husband won’t be risking a lengthy jail sentence by helping her.

I don’t believe that he would be prosecuted — for the reasons I’ve listed above — but that’s not what Debbie wants: she wants to know he wouldn’t be. And I think when our laws are forcing her to battle the system, rather than actually enjoy life with the husband whom she obviously loves, there’s something wrong.