Assisted Suicide

Speech delivered to Assembly, 12 October 2009 on Tue 13th Oct 2009

At the outset, I emphasise that, given that my party regards assisted suicide as an issue of conscience, I speak in a purely personal capacity.

I also do so because of the personal circumstance in which I, like other Members, find myself. Within a little over two years my mother and my mother-in-law both died. Both died in their own beds, in their own homes, surrounded by family and after relatively short illnesses in which they did not suffer greatly. For that, we are extremely grateful. One should be very grateful that somebody can have more than 90 years of a happy life and die secure in their faith without suffering.

We must recognise that that is not the case for everyone in society. I am not talking about examples such as that which the proposer of the motion gave when he talked of his brother. The issue is not one of saying whether any particular person's life is worthless. However, difficulties arise that must be taken into account. One such example is the Purdy case, which involves someone who is clearly fully mentally competent and who recognises the suffering that may lie ahead. In such cases, the person involved may not share the faith that sustains others.

It seems to me that the key element is to ensure that guidelines are in place to meet those difficult circumstances with compassion while protecting the vulnerable. I do not doubt that in some places where assisted suicide has been legalised, the pressure builds up and assisted suicide becomes the assumed outcome and not just an option for those who wish to choose it. We should oppose absolutely people's being pressurised in that direction. Therefore, I agree with the opposition of the Members who tabled the motion to any question of legalising suicide in our society.

However, it was a little unfortunate that, when moving the motion, Mr Donaldson used the term "euthanasia" a couple of times. My understanding is that euthanasia is an active process of what might be described as mercy killing. I believe that there is a slight difference between the terms "suicide" and "assisting suicide" that is not accounted for fully in the language that he used.

Mr Donaldson: I was not trying to liken assisted suicide with euthanasia; my point was that there is a very fine line between the two, and that if one were legalised, the inevitable consequence would be the legalisation of the other.

Mr Ford: I thank the Member for that clarification. I may not agree with his use of the word "inevitable" but I can certainly accept his point about there being a narrow line.

Other Members talked about the clear need for us to ensure that better care, including palliative care, is provided for many people with long-term illnesses. We heard already in the debate of examples of places and of family circumstances in which people with particular long-term needs are well cared for. The reality is that as a society we may or may not resource acute hospital services well. We do not, as a society and in general, resource community care and palliative care nearly as well as we should.

To some extent, the debate is not quite about the current legal situation. I have stated my opposition to any question of legalising assisted suicide, but we now have the DPP's guidelines of the circumstances in which prosecution would be considered. Those guidelines make it clear that the process for prosecuting assisted suicide cases is exactly the same as that for any other criminal case. First, there is the evidential test, which, in itself, may not be entirely clear. That is the situation in the Purdy case. Secondly, the public interest is tested. I would certainly not stand over the guidelines for the latter test in every sense as they are promulgated, but I believe that they are a reasonable attempt to recognise that there will be a small number of extremely difficult circumstances in which prosecution will probably not be in the public interest.

In circumstances in which someone who is deeply affected by their love for somebody who is suffering gives that person a relatively small amount of assistance to carry out what is clearly an intended suicide, we have to recognise that there are real public interest issues in pursuing such a case to the full extent of criminal law.

The Director of Public Prosecution's guidelines are a reasonable attempt to take account of such circum­stances. Nevertheless, rather than the majority of Members simply saying, as I expect, that they are opposed to legalisation, we should debate them in more detail than one can manage in a five-minute speech in this place. There are difficulties with how guidelines might be applied on the issue of whether prosecution is in the public interest that must be discussed, not just by lawyers and doctors but by wider society, of which we are representatives. With that caveat in mind, I accept what the proposer of the motion has said, but this debate should not be the end of the matter.