Three-quarters of British people support legalizing assisted suicide

From The Telegraph in the UK:

Three quarters of those polled said the law should be amended to allow assisted suicide, which is punishable by up to 14 years in prison, in some cases.

Even if the law is unchanged, more than 80 per cent believe that the relatives of terminally ill people who have made it clear that they want to die should not be prosecuted.

The findings come as Sir Terry Pratchett, the author who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, prepares to deliver a lecture tonight in which he will call for assisted suicide “tribunals” to give the terminally ill permission to end their lives.

In the Richard Dimbleby Lecture, he will offer himself as a test case for the proposed tribunals, which would be staffed by a panel including a legal expert in family matters and a doctor with experience of serious, long-term illness, who would determine whether sufferers were of sound mind.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is currently drawing up new guidelines covering the circumstances in which cases will be brought against family members who help their loved ones to die.

Last week, a judge criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for bringing a case against Kay Gilderdale, who was found not guilty of the attempted murder of her daughter, Lynn, 31, who was suffering from the neurological condition ME.

Mr Justice Bean said the trial should never have happened – but Mr Starmer insisted it had been in the public interest because Mrs Gilderdale had administered morphine after Lynn lost consciousness during a suicide attempt.

Sir Terry, who prefers the term “assisted death,” will say that being given permission to end his life would make each day more precious, and add that doctors would not be forced to help the terminally ill to die.

He will go on: "If I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds.

"I certainly do not expect or assume that every GP or hospital practitioner would be prepared to assist death by arrangement, even in the face of overwhelming medical evidence. That is their choice. Choice is very important in this matter.

"But there will be some probably older, probably wiser, who will understand.

"The tribunal would be acting for the good of society as well as that of the applicant … and ensure they are of sound and informed mind, firm in their purpose, suffering from a life threatening and incurable disease and not under the influence of a third party.

“If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice.”

The DPP has issued interim guidelines containing a checklist of 13 mitigating factors over whether to prosecute a relative for assisted suicide, which Mr Starmer is expected to make permanent next month.

These include where the ill person has indicated a “clear, settled and informed” wish to die. A great majority of people think this is a sensible approach to take – although it would involve the law remaining as it is.

MPs have been reluctant to tinker with the laws in this area, which make little distinction between assisted dying, assisted suicide, euthanasia and murder, but there seems to be a public appetite for their clarification.

An opinion poll by ComRes to accompany a Panorama programme to accompany the lecture came up with similar levels of support for the legalisation of assisted dying for the terminally ill.

Mrs Gilderdale told the programme that the law "doesn't make sense" as it stands.

She added: "I know I did the right thing for Lynn. She's free and at peace where she needed to be. Whatever the consequences, I would do it again."

Debbie Purdy, the multiple sclerosis patient whose legal victory forced the DPP to draw up new guidelines, added: "This is the only law in the United Kingdom where carrying out an act is legal, but assisting in that act is illegal."

Earlier this month, Francis Inglis, 57, was found guilty of the murder of her son, Thomas, and sentenced to life in prison, with a minimum of nine years.

He had been brain damaged and she said that she wanted to free him from the “living hell” of permanent disability.

Because Thomas had not given an indication that he wanted to die nor was he terminally ill, Mrs Inglis would not have been covered by any change in the law. Campaigners say that in cases like hers, judges should have greater discretion to show compassion and mercy.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, has disclosed that while working as a family doctor he had prescribed large doses of strong painkillers to terminally ill patients knowing that it might hasten their death.

But he had always followed guidelines and opposes a change in the law. He told the Sunday Times: "It is a very painful issue for any of us who have been in that area.

"I have always drawn the line between mainstream medical practice and euthanasia. I just can't cross it."

Dr Peter Saunders of Care Not Killing added: "To argue that if you are terminally ill you deserve less protection from the law than do the rest of us is highly discriminatory as well as dangerous."

YouGov questioned 2,053 adults between 26 and 28 January.