Cruel Laws
Charlie Falconer, Lord Chancellor in the last Labour Government, is a well-known supporter of changing the law on assisted dying bill.
In this article for The Guardian Charlie Falconer highlights the case of Jeffrey Spector, the experience of an assisted dying regime in Oregon and the recent decision of the Canadian Supreme Court as evidence of how significantly public opinion on this issue has changed.
Jeffrey Spector deserved better than our cruel law on assisted dying
By Charles Falconer - The Guardian
To avoid incriminating his family a British father died hundreds of miles from home, months before he was ready. It’s time for legal reform
To avoid incriminating his family a British father died hundreds of miles from home, months before he was ready. It’s time for legal reform
Jeffrey Spector with his wife and three daughters. 'To control his own death, he had to 'jump the gun' and travel overseas to die while he was still well enough to make the trip.' Photograph: Facebook / Collect
The House of Lords is balloting this evening on private members’ bills for this parliamentary session. I have once again submitted an assisted dying bill to the ballot because we cannot continue to deny terminally ill people the dignity and choice they are entitled to at the end of their life.
Jeffrey Spector’s case is yet another example of the cruelty of the current English law. A loving father and husband had his last supper miles from home, months before he was ready, because he feared he might lose control over his death here in the UK.
The previous law has gone by the board. It has been replaced by the discretion of the director of public prosecutions – discretion that would prosecute a doctor who helped someone take their own life but would sanction amateur assistance in the UK, or accompanying someone to Switzerland.
Jeffrey Spector explained that in order to control his own death, he had to “jump the gun” and travel overseas to die while he was still well enough to make the trip, or else implicate his family in assisting him in this country at a later date. Like many in his situation, he felt exposing his loved ones to this impossible dilemma was simply not an option.
The law now has no ethical basis. It is cruel in its effect and parliament should look at it urgently. It might yet conclude that no change should be made, but surely legislators must examine in detail the suffering our outdated laws are having on people like Mr Spector. Currently one Briton a fortnight travels to Dignitas in Switzerland, while a further 300 terminally ill people are ending their own lives behind closed doors at home.
The courts have asked parliament to look at the law. Last month the largest poll on assisted dying found 82% of the public believe the law should be changed.
During the debates last year, it became clear that a majority of the House of Lords is sympathetic to changing the law, but owing to a lack of time the bill fell. Whether it succeeds this time appears to depend on the random result of a ballot, not on the demands of the British public or the recommendations of the supreme court. Parliament’s standing would be improved by addressing a problem it alone can solve.
We have already seen this change in other parts of the world. Oregon was the first state to allow assisted dying for terminally ill people in America. Since 1997, it has given dying people the power to take control over their deaths, and shown all scaremongering over changing the law to be baseless.
In the 18 years since legalisation there has been no evidence of abuse or vulnerable people being put at risk, while the Oregon Hospice Association stated that assisted dying had not negatively affected palliative care. In all three states where it is legal, countless more people can take comfort from knowing there is an assisted dying law, whether they use it or not.
In February, the Canadian supreme court struck down the federal blanket prohibition of all assistance to die. It rightly declared that this prohibition – well-intentioned as once it might have been – unfairly restricts the rights of people to decide how they want to live and die.
Crucially, it also found no evidence that prohibiting assisted dying was safer than having a law with upfront protections.
With 18 years of evidence demonstrating how a compassionate law can work well, and faced with growing pressure throughout the world for a more humane approach to people’s choices at the end of life, it’s about time we saw a change in how our own law treats people like Jeffrey Spector.
It’s too important an issue to leave to chance. We all will die, and some of us will want the choice to be helped along the way – to die in our homes with our loved ones around us, not in a foreign country, before we are ready.
The government should make time in both houses for the bill to be considered. Legislators cannot continue to duck the issue or leave it in the “too difficult” box.
It’s the least parliament could do for people such as Jeffrey Spector and his family, pushed to extreme measures by a law that no longer commands the support of British society.
The House of Lords is balloting this evening on private members’ bills for this parliamentary session. I have once again submitted an assisted dying bill to the ballot because we cannot continue to deny terminally ill people the dignity and choice they are entitled to at the end of their life.
Jeffrey Spector’s case is yet another example of the cruelty of the current English law. A loving father and husband had his last supper miles from home, months before he was ready, because he feared he might lose control over his death here in the UK.
The previous law has gone by the board. It has been replaced by the discretion of the director of public prosecutions – discretion that would prosecute a doctor who helped someone take their own life but would sanction amateur assistance in the UK, or accompanying someone to Switzerland.
Jeffrey Spector explained that in order to control his own death, he had to “jump the gun” and travel overseas to die while he was still well enough to make the trip, or else implicate his family in assisting him in this country at a later date. Like many in his situation, he felt exposing his loved ones to this impossible dilemma was simply not an option.
The law now has no ethical basis. It is cruel in its effect and parliament should look at it urgently. It might yet conclude that no change should be made, but surely legislators must examine in detail the suffering our outdated laws are having on people like Mr Spector. Currently one Briton a fortnight travels to Dignitas in Switzerland, while a further 300 terminally ill people are ending their own lives behind closed doors at home.
The courts have asked parliament to look at the law. Last month the largest poll on assisted dying found 82% of the public believe the law should be changed.
During the debates last year, it became clear that a majority of the House of Lords is sympathetic to changing the law, but owing to a lack of time the bill fell. Whether it succeeds this time appears to depend on the random result of a ballot, not on the demands of the British public or the recommendations of the supreme court. Parliament’s standing would be improved by addressing a problem it alone can solve.
We have already seen this change in other parts of the world. Oregon was the first state to allow assisted dying for terminally ill people in America. Since 1997, it has given dying people the power to take control over their deaths, and shown all scaremongering over changing the law to be baseless.
In the 18 years since legalisation there has been no evidence of abuse or vulnerable people being put at risk, while the Oregon Hospice Association stated that assisted dying had not negatively affected palliative care. In all three states where it is legal, countless more people can take comfort from knowing there is an assisted dying law, whether they use it or not.
In February, the Canadian supreme court struck down the federal blanket prohibition of all assistance to die. It rightly declared that this prohibition – well-intentioned as once it might have been – unfairly restricts the rights of people to decide how they want to live and die.
Crucially, it also found no evidence that prohibiting assisted dying was safer than having a law with upfront protections.
With 18 years of evidence demonstrating how a compassionate law can work well, and faced with growing pressure throughout the world for a more humane approach to people’s choices at the end of life, it’s about time we saw a change in how our own law treats people like Jeffrey Spector.
It’s too important an issue to leave to chance. We all will die, and some of us will want the choice to be helped along the way – to die in our homes with our loved ones around us, not in a foreign country, before we are ready.
The government should make time in both houses for the bill to be considered. Legislators cannot continue to duck the issue or leave it in the “too difficult” box.
It’s the least parliament could do for people such as Jeffrey Spector and his family, pushed to extreme measures by a law that no longer commands the support of British society.
