Assisted dying an issue for MPs

Everyone who has followed the case of Lecretia Seales, who spent the last weeks of her life seeking a declaration from the High Court that could have allowed her to hasten her death, could not help but feel the deepest sympathy for her. A hugely accomplished woman both in her profession and in her pursuits outside her career, she had been struck with cancer of the brain that was crippling and would eventually kill her. She was seeking a declaration of the law that could have allowed her, if she felt she had reached the point where it was necessary, to avoid a lingering and possibly painful death and to die with dignity.

Justice David Collins declined her application, as was almost inevitable. When she started her High Court action in March, Seales had been given between three months and 18 months to live. As it happened, she died a few hours after she learned that her wish had been denied. She may have been disappointed by that result, although it would have made no difference to her own case, but she may also have been comforted by the fact that the case has put the issue of euthanasia back on the public agenda, which was no doubt part of her intention in bringing it.

What the outcome of the debate will be is by no means certain. As Collins’ closely reasoned and careful judgment makes clear, the issue is a fraught one to which no easy or glib answer is possible. As Collins says, it engages four principles – the sanctity of human life, respect for human dignity, respect for individual autonomy and protection of the vulnerable – that are overlapping, complex, multifaceted and all subject to much debate.

Collins decided the matter on the substantive issues of the law before him – the main one being whether a doctor who helped a person to die or provided the means to do so would be guilty of a crime. He decided that as the law stood, the doctor would be guilty.

But most people would believe the whole issue of euthanasia is one ultimately for elected members in Parliament, not unelected judges, to decide. And although cases such as this one have from time to time brought the issue to the fore, Parliament has scarcely seriously addressed it. No government has taken the issue up and three members bills in the last 20 years have failed. That may be because, despite the anguish caused by cases that reach the headlines, there has been no great public groundswell to change the status quo.

One issue would be the role of doctors. Seales’s doctor was willing to do what Seales requested if it had been legal, but many doctors, and doctors’ official bodies, believe such actions, even if legal, would be contrary to the purpose of their calling.

A few other jurisdictions like the Netherlands and Oregon have introduced measures that allow some form or other of euthanasia. The experience in those places has not really resolved the debate and few other places in Europe, the United States or elsewhere have shown any great inclination to follow them. Without a public push for it, that is likely to be the case here too.