British woman with MS loses assisted suicide appeal

From The Guardian in the UK:

A woman with multiple sclerosis Feb. 19 lost her court of appeal case to have the law on assisted suicide clarified.

Debbie Purdy, 45, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, wanted to know if her husband, the Cuban violinist Omar Puente, would be prosecuted if he helped her travel to die in a country where it is legal. Under British law, aiding and abetting suicide is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

But the appeal judges rejected Purdy's claim that lack of proper guidance infringed her Article 8 right to private and family life under the European convention on human rights.

They said that there was "ample material" already available to enable her legal advisers to assess how likely a prosecution might be – and said that a court would most likely take the view that a prison sentence would be inappropriate punishment for the crime.

"Not withstanding our sympathy for the dreadful predicament in which Mrs Purdy and Mr Puente find themselves, this appeal must be dismissed," they said in their ruling.

In his first decision as director of public prosecutions (DPP) last year, Keir Starmer QC said he would not prosecute the parents and a family friend in the case of Daniel James, 23, who went to Switzerland to die last year after being paralysed in a rugby accident.

Today the judges said it had been suggested during the recent hearing that a combination of the general guidance available and analysis of the James case provided "ample material" for Purdy's legal advisers to address the likelihood of a prosecution of her husband.

The judges ruled: "Ms Purdy must take legal advice, and no doubt she will, and she must then make her own decision."

But she could not do so on the basis that the DPP "should either act as her legal adviser" or offer the kind of case-specific indications "which would provide her with the absolute security of mind she is seeking".

The judges said that even if a defendant in an assisted suicide case were to be convicted, a court could take the view that the circumstances were such that no penal sanction was appropriate. The court, "exercising its own sentencing responsibilities, would order that the offender should be discharged, and might well question publicly the decision to prosecute".

"In other words, the court is part of the protective system which discourages and would prevent or extinguish the effect of any arbitrary or unprincipled exercise by the DPP of his responsibilities."

The judges said experience showed that although the courts had that necessary authority, "the occasions when it is necessary for it to be exercised are remote virtually to the point of extinction".

After receiving the judgment, Purdy said: "I feel that I have won my argument, despite having lost the appeal. I am very grateful for, and respect the ruling of the appeal court.

"They have done everything they can do to clarify that, given the Dan James judgment, Omar would be unlikely to be prosecuted if he were to accompany me abroad for an assisted death, and we are therefore one step closer to the clarification I need."

Purdy, whose legal action was supported by Dignity in Dying – formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society – was diagnosed with primary progressive MS in 1995 and has been a wheelchair user since 2001. She has said she wants to "live forever", but is a member of Dignitas, the Swiss organisation which operates specialist euthanasia clinics.

Now gradually losing strength in her upper body, she plans to travel to Switzerland to end her life if her condition becomes unbearable. Dignitas opened in 1998 and has so far helped more than 100 UK citizens end their lives. It has upwards of 690 UK members.

Responding to today's ruling, Sarah Wootton, the chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "Dignity in Dying is pleased that the courts have gone some way to clarifying the law for Debbie, although this is not the full resolution she was hoping for.

"The court has made it quite clear that it is unlikely that Omar would be prosecuted if he were to accompany Debbie abroad for an assisted death.

"To underline this point, the judgment goes on to make clear that if someone like Omar were prosecuted, the courts are likely to dismiss the case or discharge them without a sentence.

"The courts have done all they can. They make quite clear that only parliament has the authority to change the law.

"If there's no public interest in prosecuting, there must be a public interest in updating the law to remove doubt."