The Law of the United Kingdom and the United States on Assisted Death - Essay Example

? The law of the United Kingdom and the United s on assisted Death The law of the United Kingdom and theUnited States on assisted Death Introduction Assisted suicide or assisted death is a term used where a person or an individual helps another procure his death. This in most cases exists where the person is facing an obvious death due to an incurable terminal illness and the assisted death relieves the long suffering. Historically suicide whether assisted or not was considered a criminal act in many parts of the world. In the present day there have been attempts to legalize assisted suicide. This attempt has met strong opposition from human rights activists citing issues of right to life. However some states in the United States have legalized assisted dying while it remains illegal in other states. In the United Kingdom assisted death is still illegal despite the many efforts by the parliament to pass a bill in its support. Legal Concerns Three American states namely Washington, Montana and Oregon have legalized assisted suicide. Oregon has enacted the Oregon Death with Dignity Act which has legalized assisted death. Washington too has enacted its own law namely the Washington Death with Dignity Act which too has legalized assisted suicide. In Montana assisted death was legalized via a ruling in the case of Baxter v Montana 20091. However, there are many barriers to use of these provisions considering the fact that the right to life which is a constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. An instance where the use of the provisions of the enactments has been limited is in Oregon where a physician may prescribe a medication which however must be self-administered. The person is required to be a resident of Oregon. To escape criminal liability two oral requests from the patient and a written request for prescription are a requirement. The doctor must also give a written confirmation that the act by the patient was informed and voluntary. All these limitations to these provisions check the balance between the constitutional rights to life. In some states there are enacted laws which specifically prohibit assisted suicide. For example in Alaska, Statute 11.41.120(a) (2) specifically prohibits assisted dying2. The supreme court of Alaska declared unanimously in the case of Sampson V. Alaska, that the right to assisted suicide was unconstitutional and upheld the Alaska law that prohibits the assisted suicide3. Florida State’s Statute 782.08 and euthanasia law specifically prohibit assisted dying. In Krischer v Mclver, the supreme court of Florida ruled that under the constitution of Florida the right to assisted suicide was prohibited4. The Oregon state legalized assisted dying after November the year 1994 when Oregon citizens voted for a physician assisted suicide by their vote of 51% to 49%. Later in the year 1997, the citizens rejected an attempt to overturn this law by a majority of 60%5. The Michigan law expressly prohibits assisted suicide. The law provides that a person is guilty of criminal offence if he or she knows that another person intends to commits suicide and with the intention to assist that person himself or herself provides a means or means through which that individuals kills himself or herself6. The person is also guilty where he or she directly participates in the act of killing the person committing suicide. Thus it’s still an offence in instance of attempted suicide. In most of the States of United States, it is a criminal offence to assist someone to commit suicide. Alpers and Benard affirm that churches and human rights activist have strongly fought against any attempt to enact laws that allow assisted dying7. This has been a bone of contention for a long period. Humanitarian groups now feel that the law is oppressive to the extent that it deprives an individual their right of being autonomous beings. Thus there have been debates that the law allowing attempted suicide is incompatible with the constitutional right to life. The enactment of law allowing assisted suicide has been limited greatly by the right to life which is immensely provided for in the United States law. According to Raphael, the United States law has recognized the inherent human right to life and therefore has prohibited any attempt to take someone’s life8. As such it is very difficult for a co-existence of the law allowing assisted death and the constitution right to life. There are quite a number of legislations that embody this right to life which are part and parcel of the United States laws. The United States Declaration of Independence in the year 1776 declared the inalienable rights of all men which included the right to liberty, life and pursuit of happiness. Until 1961 in the United Kingdom, it was an offence to attempt to commit suicide whether aided or not. The United Kingdom Suicide Act came in to ensure that it was not an offence to attempt to commit suicide. Section 1 of the Act provided that “the rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated”9. Thus by the virtue of this Act attempting suicide ceased to be criminal. Section (1) however as amended provided that it was a criminal offence for another person to encourage or assist another in suicide or suicide attempt. Thus in the United Kingdom, though attempted suicide is in itself not an offence, it remains an offence to help another person to commit suicide. As such the assisted suicide is illegal in the United Kingdom. Various attempts to legalize the same have failed. Lord Joffe between the years 2003 and 2006 attempted four times to introduce bills which would have led to legislation of the assisted suicide in the United Kingdom10. All these four times the bills were rejected by the United Kingdom parliament. Recent developments include a clarification by the Director of Public Prosecution in the United Kingdom of the criteria for prosecuting a person who has assisted another in taking his or her if. Thus in the United Kingdom there are no circumstance in which assisted dying is allowed as it is inconsistent with the constitutional right to life. In January 2010 Independent MSP Margo MacDonald's was brought before the Scottish Parliament to allow assisted dying11. The Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church opposed the bill and in December 2010 the bill was rejected by a vote majority of 85. Article 2 of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees the right to life and case law has on rulings arriving from the has formed precedents promoting the right to life and honoring the same as unalienable human right12. The right to life is the most basic right set out in article 2 of the convention and as such it is considered arbitrarily to deny anyone this right to life. The United Kingdom has ratified this treaty and as such it forms part of the laws governing the citizens of United Kingdom. Apart from the death penalty the provision embodies limited, circumstances in which a person’s right to life can be denied. Thus the question that was to be determined by the parliament of the United Kingdom was whether the state could interfere with this right to end the life of a person determined as clinically dead by allowing death. The convention organs have not clearly expressed the stand in cases where a person willfully asks to be put to death. The only clear indication comes by looking at the rules of mercy killings. Vide the recommendations of 1418 mercy killings are not acceptable and in addition the United Kingdom does not allow termination of life. The most recent case law where the court referred to the recommendation 1418 was the case of Pretty V. United Kingdom13. In this case, a 43 year old woman was suffering from an incurable and degenerative illness known as motor neuron disease. The intellect and capacity of the old woman to make decision was not impaired despite the fact that she was paralyzed from neck down. The woman was distressed and frightened by her predicament and she asked her husband to assist her commit suicide. The woman went ahead asked the deputy of public prosecution to assure her that he would not prosecute the husband after her death which was denied. The decision of the director of public prosecutions was upheld by the court. The Human Rights Act embodies the rights and freedoms of the citizens14. The article of the Act provides for the right to life in pursuance to the provisions of the constitution. In the case of Airedale N.H.S Trust V. Bland, a young football fan was involved in a crush that left him in a persistent vegetative state15. For three years, he survived in a life supporting machine. There was however no hope of recovery as he was unconscious. The hospital sought the consent of the parent and applied for a declaration to discontinue all the life sustenance treatment and all the support systems designed to keep him alive. In this case the declaration was granted as the court recognized that there was no intention of causing death16. This deprivation of a right to assisted suicide has been a subject for debate for many years and it is not likely to come to an end soon. The dissenting group feels that the state by denying ones right to die deprive a human being the autonomy to make decisions concerning his or her life. The inherent right of autonomy of human beings is central and as such human beings must be allowed to make their decisions independently without the interference of the state. Conclusion The legalization of assisted suicide is important though it has its own limitations. It is very unfair where a person bound to die due to a terminal illness continues to anguish in suffering. The individual should be relieved of the continued pain. When the state deprives the person the freedom of dying so as to uphold the constitutional right of life, the state in the opinion of the dissenters takes the very basic right of autonomy. It beats logic when the state takes the burden of preserving life that doesn’t really reflect the truth in life. This is because an ailing person who is bound to die may by his own volition wish to end the long suffering and the state has no right to interfere with such autonomous and independent decision. Bibliography Alpers, A and Bernard l, Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Bold Experiment (Journal of American Medical Association 1995) 483. Arras J, Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Tragic View (Journal of Contemporary Health Living, 1997) 361 Battin P., Rhodes, R, and Silvers, A, eds. Physician assisted suicide: expanding the debate (NY: Routledge, 1998). Brock, D. Life and Death (Cambridge University Press, 1993). Derek, H and Ann, W. The right to die: understanding euthanasia (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986) Emanuel, E, “The history of euthanasia debates in the United States and Britain" in Death and dying: a reader (MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010). Dennis, H and David M, eds. Death, dying, and euthanasia. Frederick, (MD: University Publications of America, 1977).  Kopelman, L. and deVille, K A., eds. Physician-assisted suicide: What are the issues? (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001). Magnusson R. “The sanctity of life and the right to die: social and jurisprudential aspects of the euthanasia debate in Australia and the United States” in ( Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 1997) 6. Marcia A, The Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide-the Ultimate Right ( New England Journal of Medicine 2007) 50 Paterson C, A History of Ideas Concerning Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (Oxford: University Press, 2010). Raphael C, The right to die with dignity: an argument in ethics, medicine, and law (New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2001) Robertson J, Involuntary euthanasia of defective newborns: a legal analysis. In Death, dying, and euthanasia (Washington: University Publications of America, 1977). Stone H, and Winslade W, Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the United States (Journal of Legal Medicine 1995) 681. Read More