Lord Joffe talks of Care Not Killing being ‘implacably opposed to assisted suicide’. Yes, we are opposed to a weakening of the law. But, if Lord Joffe reads our submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions, he will see that it is not a diatribe against changing the law but a careful and thoughtful analysis of the interim guidelines that the DPP has published as a basis for consultation. Or is Lord Joffe, perhaps, suggesting that, because CNK opposes the legalisation of assisted suicide, its views should not be taken seriously by the DPP? If that is so, then it must follow that the views of pro-euthanasia organisations such as Dignity in Dying should also be marginalised.
Lord Joffe seems to have little regard for the Code for Crown Prosecutors, largely on the basis that one of the Law Lords described them earlier this year as unhelpful. The Law Lord in question is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I think we need rather more evidence than that that the Code is defective before consigning it to oblivion.
Lord Joffe talks of opinion polls. Would he also support other initiatives, such as the reintroduction of hanging, leaving the European Union and banning immigration, which opinion polls often favour? Legalising assisted suicide is a complex and serious issue which risks putting vulnerable people at risk of self-harm. It is Parliament's responsibility to weigh the many issues involved, including public opinion, carefully before making a balanced decision. Parliament has done that twice in the last four years and decisively, and on a free vote, come down against changing the law.
Lord Joffe states that ‘the CNK response clearly aims to reduce to the very minimum those who will not be prosecuted for assisted dying’. Is he suggesting that it is a responsible objective to maximise instances of immunity from prosecution?
Lord Joffe believes that the DPP's interim policy ‘complies exactly’ with the Law Lords’ intentions. It is not clear how he arrives at this conclusion. What is clear is that a number of the specific conditions proposed in the interim guidelines are open to serious question - for example, that assisting someone who is seriously ill or disabled to commit suicide should be regarded less seriously than assisting someone else or that spouses and family members should be treated more leniently as assisters than others on the flawed assumption that they invariably have the interests of the deceased at heart.
We have made our views known to the DPP, and Lord Joffe and his associates have presumably done so too. We should leave Mr Starmer to form his own judgments without these ‘noises off’.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find some of the things said by Lord Joffe hard to credit. He appears to be challenging the entirely sensible provision in the Code for Crown Prosecutors that, where there has been a breach of the criminal law, there should be a presumption that a prosecution will take place unless there are public interest factors to the contrary. The Code for Prosecutors applies to the criminal law as a whole, not just to offences of assisted suicide. One recognises that Lord Joffe is a campaiger for legalising euthanasia, but is he seriously suggesting that there should be no presumption of prosecution for other criminal offences too?
ReplyDeleteI am also disturbed by the intolerant approach that Lord Joffe and his associates often display towards people who have faith-based values. They may not agree with those views, but that is no reason to imply that they should be regarded as of less worth than those of people who do not have a religious faith. There should be no muzzling of opinion in this important debate.