‘Helping a loved one travel abroad for assisted dying should be decriminalised’

Family or friends who support someone to travel abroad for an assisted death should not face criminal investigation, according to a majority of people surveyed on the question.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB) said its evidence suggested public appetite for legislators to consider decriminalising the act of helping or accompanying a dying loved one to seek an assisted death in another country.

Dame Esther Rantzen has been among the high-profile critics of the current law, branding it “cruel” as she spoke of how her family could not travel to Dignitas in Switzerland with her “because otherwise they are liable to being accused of killing me and they get investigated by the police, so that’s just messy and wrong and not what we want”.

A committee is currently scrutinising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which proposes to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill adults with six months left to live in England and Wales.

The proposed legislation is expected to return to Parliament in April for further debate and a vote by all MPs.

Research

The NCOB said their research suggested people also want the question considered of how loved ones are treated if a relative or friend goes abroad to die.

Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years.

Former director of public prosecutions (DPP) Sir Max Hill, who has previously stated his support for the Bill, told the scrutiny committee in January that should the current Bill pass, “it doesn’t follow” that those who take relatives who remain ineligible under the new law to Dignitas “would necessarily face prosecution”.

But he said it would remain the case that they could be prosecuted.

Compassion

Sir Max said in his time as DPP some 27 cases of assisted suicide had come across his desk, with a “substantial proportion” having involved Dignitas.

In the majority of cases he had determined no public prosecution was necessary because a surviving relative had acted “wholly out of compassion” for the deceased person.

The NCOB said the members of its so-called citizens’ jury on assisted dying had recommended legislators consider decriminalisation, while just over two-thirds (68%) of 2,000 survey respondents in England agreed the act of helping someone to go somewhere like Dignitas “should be decriminalised”.

Some 66% of people agreed that health professionals should be able to give advice to people on how to seek an assisted death at clinics abroad without the fear of being prosecuted.

Last September it was revealed that a majority of the citizens’ jury – a randomly selected group brought together to discuss the topic by the NCOB – had agreed assisted dying should be permitted in England, after deliberating on the topic for eight weeks.

A final vote was cast by 28 jury members, with 20 agreeing that the law should change to permit assisted dying in England.

Seven people disagreed with any potential law change and one person was undecided.

Decriminalisation

On the latest findings around decriminalisation, Professor Anne Kerr, chairwoman of the NCOB’s advisory board on assisted dying and council member, said: “However the current UK debate on assisted dying laws plays out, there will be people in our society who, for various reasons, opt to travel abroad to access an assisted death.

“The public want lawmakers to reconsider whether it is right for someone who has helped a loved one to travel abroad to face criminal investigation.

“We are urging those who have a role in shaping assisted dying policy to listen to this evidence, and to the other key public priorities that have been highlighted through our project.

“We share these valuable public insights in the hope that they will be taken on board by decision makers and used to develop trustworthy and robust policies that reflect public priorities.”

Opposition groups branded the research “deeply flawed”.

‘Tainted’

Dr Gordon Macdonald, chief executive of Care Not Killing, described the citizens jury process as “tainted”, because around 65% of jury members had a view when they were initially recruited that assisted dying should be legalised.

He said: “Most people would think that this makes a mockery of the term jury.

“But things could have been so different. Had the Nuffield Council on Bioethics chosen a jury which was rigorously impartial with no strong views about assisted dying the conclusions reached would almost certainly have been different.”

Right to Life, which is opposed to a change in the law, said the council “chose to stack the ‘jury’ with people supportive of changes in the law”.

Both groups also pointed out that NCOB director Danielle Hamm was formerly director of the end of life charity Compassion in Dying, which is linked to pro-change organisation Dignity in Dying.

The NCOB said Ms Hamm had chosen to recuse herself from the project from the beginning so as to avoid a conflict of interest.

On the jury point, the council said members’ opinions were representative of the wider public’s views.