A long overdue clarification of a fundamental human right

Today heralded an important step for many of the UK’s terminally ill and their relatives with a new set of legal criteria published by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).  The announcement by Keir Starmer QC has signalled that any future police investigation into those who assist a loved one in ending their lives, will be governed by key ”factors” such as financial implications and capacity for decision making. Although the move does not represent a change to the law, it has been welcomed by people such as MS sufferer Debbie Purdy who has previously called for a greater clarification on the legal position surrounding assisted suicide.

Euthanasia and assisted death remain divisive and emotive issues for many people, balancing on the one hand the rights of an individual wishing to end their life (unassisted suicide itself is no longer considered a crime) and the responsibilities of those close to them. There is also the issue of physician-assisted-suicide: euthanasia administered and supervised by doctors. For many the Hippocratic Oath presents a moral (and legal) obstacle to medical professionals helping to prematurely end the life of a patient. Whether this stance can be applied in all circumstances- even where continued quality of life for the patient is impossible- is also highly debateable. 

The announcement has been both praised and criticised in different quarters and is likely to produce further fall-out over the coming days and weeks. What is clear however is that a sensible national debate over the morality and legality of assisted suicide is both needed and long overdue in this country. Not since 1957 and the ruling made during the trial of Dr John Bodkin Adams on the use of euthanasia in alleviating pain, has Britain assessed its position on forms of assisted-suicide. A number of EU states such as Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg have already sanctioned physician-assisted-suicide, as has Switzerland, Thailand and parts of the U.S. 

Clearly, human intervention in ending someone’s life is never going to be a straight forward issue, but surely taking control in deciding one’s own life and death is as fundamental a human right as that of free speech or fair trial.  For those whose lives have become unbearable through debilitating and terminal illness it is a debate we need to have as soon as possible.

The price of free speech?

The BBC has revealed it may allow the BNP to participate in future broadcasts of Question Time.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. These defiant words first uttered by the 18th century French philosopher and polemic Voltaire, have long served as a moral buttress to the exponents of liberal democracy. The maxim has long helped square the unfortunate circle faced by left-leaning liberals and enlightened intelligentsia regarding the views of political and religious extremists, put simply: tolerating the intolerant. With Britain long priding itself on being a free and democratic nation, one could argue that the BBC’s recent decision to potentially allow the BNP to feature on future panels of Question Time, is merely the logical conclusion of this philosophy. It is a decision however that will undoubtedly be interpreted by many as foolhardy rather than brave, reprehensible as opposed to just. In a previous post I highlighted the Daily Telegraph’s decision to allow BNP councillor Richard Barnbrook to register and host a blog on its website, and examined the moral conundrum this provoked. The possibility of Nick Griffin appearing on BBC One prime time to discuss such topics as immigration, foreign policy, equality and civil rights will most definitely up the freedom of expression ante. For their part the BBC have defended the decision on the grounds that (quite rightly) they favour no particular political party, and show “due impartiality” to all. What will be most interesting however are how other members of the panel and the audience will respond to the move. One school of thought suggests that the best way to deal with extremists is to provide them a platform upon which their values and beliefs will be duly eviscerated by audience scorn. The other side of the coin however insists that such exposure often does little to undermine such views. Indeed invitation on to a nationally broadcast political debate lends an unavoidable “legitimacy” to all those taking part. As an advocate of freedom of expression I myself am divided as to how best to respond to such fringe parties. Will the oxygen of publicity extinguish or inflame the BNP’s standing? Will Nick Griffin simply elect to repeat the decision he took over his invitation to a garden party at Buckingham Palace? Time will tell. Until then my view remains the same: those who adhere to and support the tenets of a free and equal society, and who do not seek to incite fear or hatred, have every right to contribute to reasoned debate. Whether or not the BNP falls into this category (and should thus be able to engage in a televised debate) will ultimately depend on ones own moral and political values.