END OF LIFE
There are a number of distinctions that are crucial to understanding the law's role in end of life decision-
making;
1. Capacity and Incapacity.
2. Positive acts and omissions.
3. Curably or incurably ill.
JUDICIAL REVIEW ACTIONS
Dianne Pretty (2001)
Pretty had attempted to change British law so she could end her own life due to pains and problems
she endured as a result of her terminal motor neurone disease. She wanted a quick death without
suffering, at home surrounded by my family. Her illness had resulted in her having to be looked after
round the clock by her husband and nurses, meaning she would not have been able to commit suicide
even if she were physically able.
Pretty took her case to court using the HRA 1998 in an attempt to absolve liability of anybody involved
assisting her death. British courts did not accept her Article 3 and 8 arguments. The ECtHR refused to
acknowledge that the ECHR provided a right to die and her appeal to that court also failed.
Dian Pretty died aged 43 on 11 May 2002, as her health had deteriorated over the previous several
months due to a series of lung and chest problems.
Debbie Purdy (2009)
Purdy had multiple sclerosis (MS) and wished to end her life. She argued in court that it was against
her human rights not to know if her husband would be prosecuted if he went abroad with her to die.
Debbie won her case in the House of Lords. The judges said that the law was no clear enough about
when people would be prosecuted for encouraging or assisting suicide. They ordered the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) to produce guidance on what makes a prosecution more or less likely.
Tony Nicklinson (2014)
Nicklinson had a stroke in 2005 and was left paralysed and could only move his head and his eyes. For
many years he wanted to end his life but could not do so without assistance. He asked the High Court
to state that it would be lawful for a doctor to help him end his life. If they refused, he wanted them to
state that the current law was incompatible with his human rights. The court initially refused to do both
of these things. Shortly afterwards Nicklinson refused food and water and died of pneumonia. His wife
Jane continued his case to the Court of Appeal and Paul Lamb was added to the case (Lamb could not
move anything other than his right hand). The appeal was rejected and proceeded to the Supreme
Court.
The majority of the Supreme Court stated that they could decide the ban was incompatible with Article
8 ECHR unless Parliament acted to reform it. This was a clear warning to Parliament that if they did not
address the issue of assisted dying, the courts would have to.
'Martin' (2014)
Martin suffered a brainstem stroke in August 2008 which left him almost completely unable to move. He
wished to end his life by travelling abroad. Martin argued that the DPP policy on encouraging or
, assisted suicide was not clear enough for people such as carers to know how they could provide
assistance without the risk of being prosecuted.
The Court of Appeal held that policy was not sufficiently clear in relation to healthcare professionals. AS
a consequence the DPP clarified the policy in 2014.
Paul Lamb (2014)
Paul Lamb is paralysed from the neck down and lives in constant pain. In July 2019 he applied to the
High Court for permission to judicially review the UK's law on assisted dying. In his application he
argues that he has an irreversible disability which causes intolerable pain and suffering, resulting in him
wishing to be able to take his own life whenever he so chooses. He submits that s.2 and 2A Suicide
Act 1961 are incompatible with Article 14 ECHR and invites the court to grant a declaration of
incompatibility to that effect.
Noel Conway (2017)
Noel Conway suffers from motor neurone disease and has recently fought a legal battle for the right to
a peaceful and dignified death. Conway is dependent on a ventilator for up to 23 hours a day and only
has movement in his right hand, head and neck. He wishes to have the right to die when he has less
than six months to live and still has the mental capacity to decide.
Courts felt they were not as well-placed as Parliament to determine the necessity and proportionality of
a blanket ban and that the scheme proposed by Conway was inadequate to protect the weak and
vulnerable. Some felt that the current law is the safest option - a complete ban on assisted suicide and
euthanasia.
Omid T (2017)
Omid T suffered from multiples systems atrophy, an incurable condition which has permanently
reduced his quality of life below the level he is able to accept. It is not terminal so he may have to
continue suffering against his will for many years. Omid wanted to go beyond what was argued by
Conway as he felt the six months prior to death was too restrictive.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
POSITIVE ACTS
Both brining life to an end through positive means and withdrawing treatment are potentially criminal
acts.
Murder
This is an offence at common law and requires the unlawful killing of a 'life in being' with an intention to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Intention does not equate with motive, so it is irrelevant why the
defendant killed them, they must simply have intended to. Even compassionate killing is unlawful.
Re Inglis [2010]
Appellant appealed against her conviction for murdering her son. Having undergone life-saving surgery,
her son was left in a vegetative state which she honestly believed to be permanent. She became
obsessive and believed he was in pain and wanted to end his suffering. She injected him with a lethal
does of heroin with the intention to kill.
Her conviction was upheld. Lord Chief Justice clarified that the law of murder does not distinguish
between murder committed for malevolent reasons and murder motivated by familial love. They also
There are a number of distinctions that are crucial to understanding the law's role in end of life decision-
making;
1. Capacity and Incapacity.
2. Positive acts and omissions.
3. Curably or incurably ill.
JUDICIAL REVIEW ACTIONS
Dianne Pretty (2001)
Pretty had attempted to change British law so she could end her own life due to pains and problems
she endured as a result of her terminal motor neurone disease. She wanted a quick death without
suffering, at home surrounded by my family. Her illness had resulted in her having to be looked after
round the clock by her husband and nurses, meaning she would not have been able to commit suicide
even if she were physically able.
Pretty took her case to court using the HRA 1998 in an attempt to absolve liability of anybody involved
assisting her death. British courts did not accept her Article 3 and 8 arguments. The ECtHR refused to
acknowledge that the ECHR provided a right to die and her appeal to that court also failed.
Dian Pretty died aged 43 on 11 May 2002, as her health had deteriorated over the previous several
months due to a series of lung and chest problems.
Debbie Purdy (2009)
Purdy had multiple sclerosis (MS) and wished to end her life. She argued in court that it was against
her human rights not to know if her husband would be prosecuted if he went abroad with her to die.
Debbie won her case in the House of Lords. The judges said that the law was no clear enough about
when people would be prosecuted for encouraging or assisting suicide. They ordered the Director of
Public Prosecutions (DPP) to produce guidance on what makes a prosecution more or less likely.
Tony Nicklinson (2014)
Nicklinson had a stroke in 2005 and was left paralysed and could only move his head and his eyes. For
many years he wanted to end his life but could not do so without assistance. He asked the High Court
to state that it would be lawful for a doctor to help him end his life. If they refused, he wanted them to
state that the current law was incompatible with his human rights. The court initially refused to do both
of these things. Shortly afterwards Nicklinson refused food and water and died of pneumonia. His wife
Jane continued his case to the Court of Appeal and Paul Lamb was added to the case (Lamb could not
move anything other than his right hand). The appeal was rejected and proceeded to the Supreme
Court.
The majority of the Supreme Court stated that they could decide the ban was incompatible with Article
8 ECHR unless Parliament acted to reform it. This was a clear warning to Parliament that if they did not
address the issue of assisted dying, the courts would have to.
'Martin' (2014)
Martin suffered a brainstem stroke in August 2008 which left him almost completely unable to move. He
wished to end his life by travelling abroad. Martin argued that the DPP policy on encouraging or
, assisted suicide was not clear enough for people such as carers to know how they could provide
assistance without the risk of being prosecuted.
The Court of Appeal held that policy was not sufficiently clear in relation to healthcare professionals. AS
a consequence the DPP clarified the policy in 2014.
Paul Lamb (2014)
Paul Lamb is paralysed from the neck down and lives in constant pain. In July 2019 he applied to the
High Court for permission to judicially review the UK's law on assisted dying. In his application he
argues that he has an irreversible disability which causes intolerable pain and suffering, resulting in him
wishing to be able to take his own life whenever he so chooses. He submits that s.2 and 2A Suicide
Act 1961 are incompatible with Article 14 ECHR and invites the court to grant a declaration of
incompatibility to that effect.
Noel Conway (2017)
Noel Conway suffers from motor neurone disease and has recently fought a legal battle for the right to
a peaceful and dignified death. Conway is dependent on a ventilator for up to 23 hours a day and only
has movement in his right hand, head and neck. He wishes to have the right to die when he has less
than six months to live and still has the mental capacity to decide.
Courts felt they were not as well-placed as Parliament to determine the necessity and proportionality of
a blanket ban and that the scheme proposed by Conway was inadequate to protect the weak and
vulnerable. Some felt that the current law is the safest option - a complete ban on assisted suicide and
euthanasia.
Omid T (2017)
Omid T suffered from multiples systems atrophy, an incurable condition which has permanently
reduced his quality of life below the level he is able to accept. It is not terminal so he may have to
continue suffering against his will for many years. Omid wanted to go beyond what was argued by
Conway as he felt the six months prior to death was too restrictive.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
POSITIVE ACTS
Both brining life to an end through positive means and withdrawing treatment are potentially criminal
acts.
Murder
This is an offence at common law and requires the unlawful killing of a 'life in being' with an intention to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Intention does not equate with motive, so it is irrelevant why the
defendant killed them, they must simply have intended to. Even compassionate killing is unlawful.
Re Inglis [2010]
Appellant appealed against her conviction for murdering her son. Having undergone life-saving surgery,
her son was left in a vegetative state which she honestly believed to be permanent. She became
obsessive and believed he was in pain and wanted to end his suffering. She injected him with a lethal
does of heroin with the intention to kill.
Her conviction was upheld. Lord Chief Justice clarified that the law of murder does not distinguish
between murder committed for malevolent reasons and murder motivated by familial love. They also
