Heather Bellamy spoke with Dr Peter Saunders about Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill, euthanasia and assisted suicide across Europe and exactly what it might look like should assisted suicide be legalised in England.

Dr Peter Saunders

Care Not Killing is a UK-based alliance of individuals and organisations which brings together disability and human-rights groups, health-care providers and faith-based bodies. They have recently raised concerns that Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill constitutes the most serious threat to the security of terminally-ill and disabled people in our country for eight years. Coming at the same time has been the judgement from the Supreme Court rejecting the cases brought by Martin, Paul Lamb and the wife of Tony Nicklinson, meaning that the law remains unchanged for assisted suicide and euthanasia. To discuss all of this Heather Bellamy spoke with Dr Peter Saunders, the campaign Director for Care Not Killing.

Heather: Thank you for joining me today. I'd like to start with the Supreme Court ruling. Please could you begin by giving us an overview of the cases brought before the court?

Peter: There were three cases: Tony Nicklinson, Paul Lamb and a man known only as Martin but it's not his real name. These cases had gradually come together over hearings first at the High Court, then the Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court just before Christmas, so this ruling came out very recently. Tony Nicklinson was a man with what we call locked-in syndrome after a stroke, which means he could communicate only by using his eyes with a laptop computer; he couldn't speak and he had to be helped with just about everything. Paul Lamb, a man who'd been injured and also had a very serious disability, although not as serious as Tony's, he could operate a wheelchair on his own with a hand. Martin was also a man with locked-in syndrome like Tony Nicklinson. Tony Nicklinson had actually died last year but his widow had carried on with his case and both she and Paul Lamb were arguing that for Tony Nicklinson and Paul to be denied assisted suicide interfered with their rights to private life under the European Convention on Human Rights as put in our Human Rights Act. Martin was arguing that the Director of Public Prosecutions who heads up the Crown Prosecution Service should have to make clear in advance the extent to which lawyers and doctors could assist his suicide without being prosecuted. Both cases were threatening to change the law on assisted suicide, but to cut a long story short, at the Supreme Court both cases lost: Nicklinson/Lamb lost by seven to two and Martin lost unanimously. That means that the law on assisted suicide, which makes all assisted suicide illegal, has not been changed as a result of these cases.

Heather: Although that sounds positive for those who wouldn't want the law to change, there were different things said by different judges in the ruling, for example, two said that their prohibition on assisted suicide was incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a right to private life and four justices said that it was for Parliament, not the courts, to change the law in this area. Do you think these statements should be seen as weakening the law and encouraging Parliament to re-look at it?

Peter: I don't think that these statements in themselves, or the judgement weaken the law, or change it - but certainly from some of the judges, there was a strong signal to Parliament that it should look at this whole issue again. In fact five of the judges in the Nicklinson case said that they thought that the court did have jurisdiction to be able to make law or to change law in this area. In other words there was a kind of veiled threat: unless you deal with it properly in Parliament, we will re-visit it later. I think that was the message that people took. As people who campaign against the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia, we were heartened by the judgement because it didn't change the law, but the issue hasn't gone away and Parliament is going to look at it again and there may well be further court cases in the future.

Heather: Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill, is going through at the minute. Do you think in light of those statements and the ruling that the House of Lords or Commons will be affected?

Peter: I think that Parliament will look at the issue in its own right. I think some people in both the Lords and the Commons, if it comes to be debated there as well, will be influenced by these particular cases, but it'll be on an individual basis. Just to understand the process, this bill is a private member's bill that's been brought by Lord Falconer, the former Chancellor to Tony Blair, in the House of Lords and so it needs to be heard there first of all and only if it passes through the House of Lords does it go to the House of Commons - and even then there's probably not enough time before the next General Election in May 2015 for it to pass through both Houses and become law. They'll have to start all over again if they don't succeed in doing that. The issue is not going to go away though and the debate in the House of Lords is going to be very important indeed.

Heather: So what does the Bill say? What is Lord Falconer looking for?

Peter: Lord Falconer calls it The Assisted Dying Bill, but what he's trying to do is to make it legal for doctors to be licensed to dispense lethal drugs for some patients to take with the intention of killing themselves. In other words it's attempting to legalise assisted suicide for people who are adults, above 18; for people who are mentally competent, in other words thought to be able to make their own decisions about these things; and thirdly people with a terminal illness who are expected to die within six months' time. So there are eligibility criteria for the Bill: it's not for everybody.

Heather: And when will it be debated in the House of Lords?

Peter: The second reading in the House of Lords, which is when they debate the principle of the bill, is on Friday 18th July and if it passes that it will then go to what's called Committee Stage where they look at amendments, to report and then to a third reading which if it happened would be much, much later in the year or next year. Then only if it passed that would it go to the House of Commons.

Heather: And when was the last bill brought on assisted suicide, because this isn't the first bill that's been brought, is it?

Peter: It's not. Lord Joffe brought three bills between 2003 and 2005 into the House of Lords. Two of these didn't progress, but the third one got to the second reading stage, this equivalent stage, when it was thrown out and that was on 12th June 2006. Then in 2009 Lord Falconer tried to bring an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill, again in The House of Lords, to decriminalise taking relatives to Dignitas in order that they might kill themselves and that was defeated also. Then in Scotland in December 2010 there was a bill from Margo MacDonald MSP, attempting to decriminalise assisted suicide and that was defeated by a very large majority: 85 to 16 on that occasion. There have been three attempts since 2005 where it's actually been debated in Parliament.

Heather: So with it failing every time so far, do you think Government or public opinion has changed since those last bills were brought?