Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Assisted Dying Bill
Previous Ethics briefings1 have reported on the progress of Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill through the House of Lords.
Committee stage of the Bill took place on 7 November 2014, where over 170 amendments were tabled. Peers debated and approved Clause One amendments, which introduce judicial oversight for assisted dying decisions. The amendments, introduced by Lord Pannick, would require a Judge in the High Court Family Division to review any request for assisted dying, and be satisfied that the individual's request was genuine and not coerced, and that they had the capacity to make such a decision. This would be in addition to the Bill's requirement for two medical practitioners to be satisfied that an individual meets the eligibility criteria, as contained in the Bill.
Committee stage will continue at a later date, yet to be confirmed.
Updated Director of Public Prosecutions’ policy on assisted suicide
As previously reported here,1 the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Tony Nicklinson in June 2014.2 Part of that appeal concerned Martin, an individual with locked-in syndrome who wanted a health professional to assist him in ending his life by accompanying him to the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland. He sought an order that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide was unlawful, insofar as it was not sufficiently clear on the position of healthcare professionals.
The Court declined to make such an order, but did hold that the DPP must take steps to resolve any uncertainty or confusion surrounding the operation of the policy.
In October 2014, the DPP issued an update to the 2010 policy to clarify the position on the likelihood of prosecution of a healthcare professional. The relevant paragraph was amended so that prosecution of a healthcare professional is now more …
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Prosecution for assisting death is less likely if patients are not known to doctors
- Bush administration should be investigated for torture of prisoners, says human rights group
- Clinical care and complicity with torture
- BMA guidance on assisted suicide violates human rights, barrister says
- Leading campaigner for legalising assisted suicide dies from starvation
- American Psychology Association colluded with Pentagon and CIA to protect interrogation program, report finds
- Prosecution of US psychologists who ran CIA torture program moves a step closer
- Making a case for the inclusion of refractory and severe mental illness as a sole criterion for Canadians requesting medical assistance in dying (MAiD): a review
- Ethics briefing
- US doctors and psychologists more complicit in torture than previously thought