Catholic Church > Legislation and Public Policy > Consultation: Assisting suicide > What is in these guidelines?
What do the guidelines look like?
The guidelines give two lists of ‘public interest’ factors, a list in favour of prosecution and a list against prosecution. In each list there are some factors that are supposed to ‘carry more weight’ and others which are supposed to be relevant, but less weighty.
What is wrong with the guidelines in general?
The first problem with the document is that it seems to give the impression of balance. In other contexts it is good to be balanced, but where lives are at stake the law should not be indifferent. The Code for Crown Prosecutors states that where there is evidence that a crime has been committed then a prosecution will normally go ahead unless public interest factors against prosecution ‘clearly outweigh’ those in favour. This presumption in favour of prosecution should be stated in these guidelines so that the law continues to protect vulnerable people.
What is wrong with the lists of factors in the guidelines?
The lists of factors in the interim Policy are currently flawed in that they identify factors which are not relevant to non-prosecution and the inclusion of which could have serious harmful effects on society:
i) The disability or state of health of the victim: A sick or disabled person’s life should merit the same degree of protection by law. The inclusion of physical disability or terminal and degenerative illness as a factor against prosecution also contradicts the declared will of Parliament, which has recently rejected the legalisation of assisted suicide in such cases.
ii) The victim’s determination to commit suicide as demonstrated by previous suicide attempts: A history of suicide is more likely to be a sign of depression or some other underlying mental disorder, and hence a factor in favour of prosecution, than it is to be a factor against prosecution.
iii) Being a spouse, partner and close family member: The law should not presume that these relationships will always be supportive. Indeed, crimes of violence are very commonly carried out by someone known to the victim and not infrequently within the same family.
What about persons and organisations dedicated to promoting or assisting suicide?
The list of factors in favour of prosecution does include assisting more than one person, or being a member of an organisation whose principal aim is to provide space for suicide attempts. However neither of these factors is listed as ‘weighty’ – and this is an important defect. What is more, the list characterises pro-suicide organisations very narrowly, and contains nothing about doctors or nurses who assist suicide. The guidelines could and should be clearer as pro-suicide organisations will certainly seek to exploit any leeway the guidelines leave them.