Britain's highest court today fuelled the debate over assisted suicide by declaring that the arguments in favour of the existing ban on the practice were “by no means overwhelming” as they delivered a landmark ruling on the rights of the terminally ill.
Judges at the Supreme Court said that they were unable to allow a human rights appeal brought on behalf of the late Tony Nicklinson and another terminally ill man, Paul Lamb.
But they said Parliament should instead consider revising the law to allow a new system under which “a judge or other independent assessor” would be able to authorise assisted suicide.
Lawyers for Mr Nicklinson and Mr Lamb argued that the law banning assisted suicide was a breach of their right to a private life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Although two of the nine judges said that they would have allowed the appeal, the other seven rejected the claim. Despite that, Lord Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, and two of his colleagues said that the law permitted a “grave” interference with the right of Mr Nicklinson and Mr Lamb to decide their own fate.
Mr Nicklinson’s widow Jane said that she was disappointed by the decision, but that the judgment was a “positive step”. Saimo Chahal, the solicitor for Mrs Nicklinson and Mr Lamb, said Parliament should “take action soon” to ease the plight of people such as Mr Lamb.
