I’d like to start with a few facts.

 According to the Suicide Act 1961, suicide is no longer an offence.

o As per Lord Dyson MR, section 1 of the Act can more accurately be described as
conferring an immunity from the criminal process for those who commit suicide, rather
than outright legalizing it.
 Section 2(1) of the Act was amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and outlaws acts
capable of assisting or encouraging suicide or attempt suicide of another person.
o This can include providing information, pressuring, threatening, or physically helping
them do so. In this, an offence may be committed even if no suicide or attempt occurs.
 Section 4 of the act states that offences of assisting with suicide will not be pursued except by or
with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (dependent on whether it would be in
the public interest)
o As per R (Purdy) v. DPP, many Brits go to Dignitas in Switzerland to die every year,
frequently accompanied by their loved ones, and none of them face prosecution
 As per the Dignitas Website, 7049 people have gone to Dignitas from Great
Britain since 2014, with 1430 going last year alone.
 It is apparent that section 4 follows what Lord Dyson said: don’t ask for
permission to assist suicide: do it and then rely on the immunity.
 R (Pretty) v. DPP was similar, as Pretty attempted to obtain an immunity document through
article 8 of the ECHR before going, and as a result was unable to go before dying.

When asking if Justice can be better served by legalizing assisted suicide, it is necessary to define justice.

 After consideration, I will be using Sen’s definition of justice in his book The Idea of Justice:
which is based on objective impartiality and fairness, and in it he recognizes justice to be
permanently in a state of progress, similar to the state of law in Britain, as leading cases evolve
the law

Moving on to the question:

 Legalizing assisted suicide would allow for clarification of terms in Section 2(1) of the Suicide act
and can allow for more directed and severe prosecution on individuals who maliciously
encourage, threaten, or pressure individuals into committing suicide, while negating punishment
for those who attempt to release loved ones from unnecessary suffering.
o In R (Conway) v. SSJ, Conway was allowed accelerated death by the removal of his non-
invasive ventilator but was prohibited from the administration of lethal medicine which
may spare him the pain of suffocation. In Nicklinson v. MOJ, Nicklinson, rendered
paraplegic via stroke, was denied assisted suicide after appealing to the high court and
subsequently starved himself to death.
 Legalizing assisted suicide would also allow for the better controlling of conditions for
prospective assisted suicide recipients.
o This could follow similar conditions to the 2016 Medical Assistance in Dying Bill
introduced in Canada, which is a commonwealth country
 These conditions include:
 The necessity of mental competence
  Possession of a Grievous and Irremediable medical condition, requiring
all of the following criteria:
o Serious illness, disease or disability
o Advanced state of decline that cannot be reversed
o Unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be relieved
o Be at a point where your natural death is reasonably
foreseeable
 A voluntary request for medical assisted death that is free from external
pressure
 Informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying
o At the time of request
o Immediately before medical assistance in dying is provided
 This is supported by the ruling in Haas v Switzerland (31322/07), in which
assisted suicide was denied to an individual who was mentally ill but refused all
manner of treatment save death.
 Several Countries have already legalized assisted suicide, none of which have spiraled into
involuntary euthanasia:
o In Canada, since the introduction of the bill, 5085 individuals have been granted
medically assisted deaths since 2016: this is 0.5% percent of the more than 1.1 million
individuals that have died in total (4 th interim report on Medical Assistance in Dying in
Canada, Health Canada 2019)(Statistics Canada)
o In the state of Oregon, where the 1997 Death with Dignity Act legalized assisted dying,
per year, as low as 47% of people who obtained a lethal prescription follow through: in
2015, only 62% of people used it, and this included the use of medicine prescribed in
previous years. As such, the knowledge that assisted dying is available may be a point of
reassurance, even if they don’t use it. (Oregon Health Authority Data Summary 2016)
 In conclusion, Justice is better served through the legalization of assisted suicide rather than the
unnecessary criminalizing of it.

Counterpoints

 Slippery slope
o Slippery slope arguments against voluntary euthanasia are based on Aktion T4, which
was a Nazi document proposing involuntary euthanasia for the purposes of eugenics
and racial hygiene towards mentally ill and physically disabled individuals, entirely
different from voluntary euthanasia, which led to the deaths of 70,273 individuals.
(Michael Burleigh, Psychiatry, German Society, and the Nazi ‘Euthanasia’ Programme)
 There is no financial incentive to pressure patients:
o 90 percent of people in Oregon who choose medical aid in dying are enrolled in hospice
care and are not receiving expensive or intensive treatment. (Oregon Health Authority
Data Summary 2016)
 Palliative care removing need for AS
o Palliative care does not negate need for assisted suicide (British Medical Journal);
Assisted Suicide does not reduce need for palliative care (Government of Canada)
 Moral Arguments:
o The advancement of the law serves justice. What does morality have to do with better
serving justice on the topic of Euthanasia?
 Doctrine of double effect:
o Forcing individuals to remain alive whilst they are suffering with no cure is harming
them.
 Voluntary Euthanasia unnecessary:
o Even the best care fails to relieve all pain and suffering. Many skilled palliative care
specialists acknowledge that palliative care does not enable an easeful death for every
patient.