Assisting Others to Commit Suicide - Coursework Example

The advice came immediately after the case of Purdy v United Kingdom (2010). Therefore, the Court had to decide whether there is a defense to murder that is referred to as a necessity or not. In addition, the Court had to decide whether a cover for such cases is an interference with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1950 or not. This Act protects the privacy of people. Lastly, the Court had to decide if the DPP is supposed to set out greater details as to how he would decide his discretion in prosecution cases of this kind.

In this case, the European Court of Human Rights, in the absence of the Lord Judge, declined to give a declaration that was requested since it was not the responsibility of the Courts of Law to make decisions about this. Parliament is the only body with the power to make such decisions. The issue was extremely controversial for the courts to deliver their rulings thus it was not a necessity. The court used the case of Bland to support its decision. Moreover, the court stated that the right to life is fundamental according to the common law, under the European Act. There being no right to commit suicide, one will be prosecuted if he or she tries to. Furthermore, if you provide a substantial defense to an individual who assisted someone to commit suicide, then euthanasia will be applied as well as assisted suicide. However, the parliament had already decided assisted suicide is a serious offense and one could get 14 years’ imprisonment for it.
Secondly, the banning of blanket-assisted suicides was initially lawful. Pretty said that it was not a breach of Article 8 or rather not proportionate. Thus, this instance in court was bound by Pretty but the courts still had to prove if it was proportional since the Human Rights Act created domestic rights that were enforceable in domestic courts. However, it would not be right for the domestic courts to create rights over and above the European Courts as it will be directed against the parliament and the 1961 Act. There was no doubt at all that the current blanket was compatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Therefore, M had no right to demand that the DPPP should detest a case where a doctor or any individual who helped someone to die should not initiate a prosecution where it was it was a breach of Article 8.

Fourthly, the policy of the DPP had to be inaccessible and foreseeable since a person who was thinking of assisting someone would be able to reasonably foresee the consequences of providing such insistence, (The Sunday Times 2010). The policy was insufficiently clear to satisfy healthcare professionals. Hence, they should give some indication of what the DPP can afford in line with the fact of the actions of the assisting killer and the idea that the victim was under his or her care (Gross v Switzerland and Purdy 2010).
Finally, the court held that a family relationship was given no special weight in the DPPP’s policy and that the policy was sufficiently clear to enable M or anyone assisting him to make an informed decision on the likelihood of prosecution. Read More