header-logo header-logo

04 June 2009
Issue: 7372 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Lord Falconer backs Purdy on assisted suicide campaign

Use of independent witnesses will guard against undue influence on patients

Multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy is appealing to the House of Lords to clarify the law on assisted suicide and has been backed by the former lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, who was due to table an amendment in the House of Lords this week.

Purdy is seeking to ensure her husband will not be prosecuted if he travels with her to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland for an assisted suicide.

Currently, the offence of aiding and abetting suicide attracts a maximum punishment of 14 years in prison.

The courts have previously said that it is up to Parliament to change the law.

Lord Falconer’s proposed amendment, to the Coroners and Justice Bill, will exempt relatives from prosecution as long as two GPs have certified a patient is terminally ill, and the individual has declared their intentions before an independent witness.

Dr Peter Gooderham, a law tutor at Cardiff University and a former medical doctor, says: “Lord Falconer makes a strong point that while the DPP has so far refrained from prosecuting about 100 people in this context, most have had to undergo police interviews.

“There is potentially much to be gained from establishing a legal exception to s 2 of the Suicide Act for relatives who help severely ill patients to end their lives. Such an exception might perhaps be similar to the exception to criminal liability contained in the Abortion Act 1967.”

“It will be desirable to allow for doctors to be ‘conscientious objectors’, subject to General Medical Council guidance on this point. It would be necessary for ‘terminally ill’ to be carefully defined in order to avoid uncertainty and abuse. The proposed  further safeguard of using an independent witness to certify the patient’s intention is likely to help guard against the exercise of undue influence on the patient.”

Issue: 7372 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll