Introduction

Assisted dying is a highly controversial and divisive issue that raises several complex ethical, social,
moral, legal and religious concerns. As a definition assisted dying is the act intentionally helping or
urging someone else to slaughter themselves. In the event that a relative of a man with a terminal
ailment acquired solid narcotics, realizing that the individual proposed to utilize the tranquilizers to
murder themselves, they might be thought to assisted dying. As the laws and legislation on assisted
suicide (dying) has been exceptionally crude in the United Kingdom as of not long ago, it appears that
there is a requirement for some illumination in the law that leaves individuals in no uncertainty as to
where they stand with respect to this issue.

Law in UK

Suicide was decriminalised by the Suicide Act in 1961 but it remains a

criminal offence in the UK to assist or encourage another person to take their
own life. In the UK the biggest punishment for assisted dying is 14 years. The main exception is
"passive euthanasia”, which is the treatment that may expand someone's life is pulled back, for
example, an existence machine being turn off. The main options for critically ill patients in the UK are
hospice mind or rejecting treatment, which rationally competent patients have the privilege to do.
Accordingly, some in critical condition individuals choose to travel abroad to die for example in
Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal.

There have also been a number of human rights challenges to the current law.  These
include Diane Pretty, a motor neurone disease sufferer and Jane Nicklinson, whose
husband Tony was almost totally paralysed following a severe stroke. Both wanted to
take their own lives and die with dignity but needed the assistance of their loved ones to
do so. However, so far the Human Rights Court has said that, although the Human
Rights Convention protects the right to life, there is no human right to die. 

The first case is about Pretty, was dying of “motor neuron disease”, a degenerative illness influencing
the muscles for which there is no fix. Given that the last phases of the illness are troubling and
undignified, she wished to have the capacity to control how and when she passed away. In view of her
sickness, the candidate couldn't confer suicide alone and needed her husband to encourage her. In any
case, even though it was anything but a wrong doing in English law to confer suicide, assisted dying was.
As the experts declined her demand, the candidate griped that her husband had not been ensured
flexibility from indictment on the off chance that he help her to die. (Echr.coe.int, 2018). In Pretty case,
the European Court of Human Right decide that she had been no violation of the right of life from
Convention and give the accept to commit assisted dying. (Echr.coe.int, 2018)

In UK Euthanasia is illegal and could be prosecuted as murder or manslaughter. ‘Assisting or

encouraging’ another person’s suicide is prohibited by s.2 of the Suicide Act 1961, as amended by the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) examines individual cases to
decide whether to prosecute. That decision is guided by offence-specific guidelines published in 2010.

The legalization of euthanasia is a problem that divides opinion around the world. Those who are in
favor of assisted dying argue that the recent law means that the people who are terminally ill suffer
against their wishes (Nataly 2017). Hence some of the arguments that support the legalization of the
assisted dying include the following.

Positive analysis in aspect of legal and ethical foundations

First is that euthanasia help in ending the suffering of the patients. It is argued that, it is appropriate for
the terminal illness individuals and the mentally competent persons to choose assisted dying rather than
suffer very executing pain in their final days (Nataly 2017). For example, when a person has leukemia
and receives a lot of pain may decide to go for euthanasia than to suffer. Hence, it is vital since it allows
the patients to die in peace than continue suffering and they will eventually die. Secondly is due to the
protection of human right. It is where all patients have the power of deciding how they want to die (The
Week Newsletter 2009). Therefore, allowing a person who terminally ill to end their own lives is seen as
a compassionate, rational and humane choice. For example, it is the right of a patient who has a
terminal illness to decide to end his or her life. When they are deprived of it, it will be violating their
human rights. Also, it vital since it ensures that human rights are protected (The Week Newsletter 2009).

Thirdly is the safeguard Regulation that allows a person to die with dignity. It indicates that
there can be certain safety rights that can be put in place that are also controlled to let a person with a
terminal illness die in dignity (Jocasta 2008). For example, safeguard rules such as a person need to be
terminally ill, be an adult, be mentally competent and also they must be in very severe pain. It is vital to
ensure that the law is regulated and controlled and not allow anyone to commit euthanasia for their
reasons (Jocasta 2008). Fourthly is eliminating the fear of financial burden. Inadequate funding for the
patient contributes significantly to despair that the patient feels and makes them need to be assisted
dying. For example, a person who has leukemia, Euthanasia 8 his or her treatment is costly such as
chemotherapy, hence instead of making the family pay for all that, they decide to go for assisted dying.
Therefore, it is vital since it helps in elevating the financial burden for the family members. Finally,
euthanasia promotes personal autonomy (The Week Newsletter 2018). It gives the patient the capacity
of deciding for themselves and also pursue their course of action to their life. Besides, assisting dying
allows patients to make their own decision with no influence from other factors.

Considering these ethical grounds legally a person should have the right to preserve their dignity
and have the right over their life to decide whether or not they wish to live in the circumstances they are
in.

Negative analysis in aspect of legal and ethical foundations

Whereas, the opponents who are against the legalization of the euthanasia first argued that, there are
alternatives treatments to terminal illness. Hence doctors do not need to kill their patients to destroy
the signs and symptoms of the illness. (IIora 2019). All the pains that the patient experience can be
relieved. For example, a patient who has cancer can go for chemotherapy instead of euthanasia. It is
vital since it will assist in keeping the patient alive and also help him through their recovery (IIora 2019).
Secondly is that no right of being killed and slippery slope. It is because euthanasia can easily lead to
voluntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. It is vital not to be legalized to avoid dying of the patients
without their will and increase mortality rate (The Parliament Business 2015). Thirdly is that assisted
dying cannot be controlled indeed. It is because it is evident through study that suicides have been legal
and the doctors do not report it. For example, a patient may go for assisted dying, but the doctor may
only report the course of death. Hence it is vital not to legalize it since it will lead to inaccurate records
of people dying due to euthanasia and it may increase the rate of death in the a (Creative Action Care
2019). Fourthly is that it brings about the aspect of corruption. Some believe that legalizing of the
assisted dying may put too much control to the doctor, where some of them may abuse such Euthanasia
9 powers. For example, a doctor may perform euthanasia without patient authorization (Kailash 2009).
Therefore, it should not be legalized so as not to put the lives of humanity in another person hands,
where they can do what they feel like due to the power upheld to them. Lastly, some of the opponents
argue that euthanasia should not be legalized due to religious reasons. The religious people believe that
life is a gift from God and only God can take it away (BBC News 2000). For example, no man even a
doctor has the power such as God to take a person’s life. Besides, it makes people understand that life is
very precious and only God can take a person’s life.

Comparative analysis

While there are a few nations where just doctor helped suicide for them in critical condition is lawful,
these are in Oregon (USA) the Netherlands and Belgium; there is still some resistance from specialists
and centre gatherings in these nations and you additionally should be an occupant of that nation to be
considered for this method.

The second case is represented by Nicklinson and Lamb. The second candidate, who was deadened and
furthermore wished to end his life, brought a grievance about the inability to furnish him with the
chance to acquire court authorization to enable a volunteer to oversee deadly medications to him with
his assent. (Echr.coe.int, 2018). For both, the European Court of Human Right decline the requests.
(Echr.coe.int, 2018).

So, when neither the European Court of Human Right does not help the only solution is to travel to
Switzerland to commit assisted suicide. Individuals who went with somebody to Switzerland said that if
assisted dying were lawful in the UK their cherished one would have kicked the bucket with all the more
family and companions around them and with more prominent help from end of them life. If the
assisted dying it will be legalised, over the social aspect, the people are not be dying into very suffering
way, this it will be they particular decision and on the end, they will die with dignity.

A change in the law is opposed by every major disability rights organisation and doctors’
group, including the BMA, Royal College of GPs and the Association for Palliative
Medicine. They all conclude there is no safe system of assisted suicide and euthanasia
anywhere in the world.

Laws in the Netherlands and Belgium were only meant to apply to mentally competent,
terminally ill adults. They have now been extended to include the elderly, disabled,
those with mental health problems and even non-mentally competent children.
Meanwhile in Oregon, the model often cited by those wanting to change the law, there
are examples of cancer patients being denied lifesaving and life extending drugs, yet
offered a lethal cocktail of barbiturates to end their own lives.

Legalising assisted suicide is dangerous because such law places pressure on

vulnerable people to end their lives, to avoid being a burden upon relatives, carers or a
state that is short of resources. The evidence from other jurisdictions demonstrates that
the so called ‘right to die’ may subtly become the ‘duty to die’.
Switzerland considers that a person should have the right to choose whether or not they should prolong
their sufferings however England does not support that view considering it inhumane. Both of the
aspects have their own arguments and this area is still in the grey with contradictory views.

Reform needed

People are living longer often with chronic, incurable diseases and palliative care is frequently of
poor quality or even unavailable in the U.K. and it is unacceptable that individuals 'suffering
unbearably' in their final days have no available domestic alternative. Yet the courts have
consistently declined to prosecute in cases where friends and relatives have accompanied
terminally ill persons abroad to die, against the provisions of the 1961 Suicide Act s2(1). 

Those who have terminal illnesses or are suffering from certain conditions
should have the freedom to choose the timing and manner of their death.
Assisted suicide is not about ending lives but providing choices. Tony
Nicklinson described his final years as “miserable, demeaning, undignified
and intolerable”. 
In practice there is some flexibility in the law as prosecutors have discretion
whether or not to take action (those assisting people with a terminal illness are
rarely charged), and there is published guidance regarding how a decision to
prosecute will be taken. However, there is no guarantee of immunity from
legal action and so those such as Diane Pretty are never truly free to choose
assisted suicide. They must still expose their loved ones to risk of criminal
prosecution – just to be able to make a choice about their own lives.
Conclusion
There is a need for reform in law where it provides a mere choice for people to
die in the presence of their loved ones to end their sufferings without having
the fear of prosecution. Several human right activists have voiced their
concerns on the modification of this legislation. While, there are pros and cons
to this fundamental aspect of assisted suicide and many contradictory
debates, a reform is due in this area.