MS sufferer loses her assisted suicide case – Questions and Answers
By Laura Hawkins
l.hawkins@my.westminster.ac.uk
What is assisted suicide?
It is a process by where a person who may otherwise be incapable is provided with the means such as drugs or equipment in order to commit suicide.
Euthanasia is a term used in a broader sense which can involve acts carried out by somebody other than the patient to end their life. The patient often does not have the choice and it also included the passive withdrawal of a life support.
Where is assisted suicide legal?
Assisted suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions including the UK. Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Oregon and Washington are all jurisdictions where it is legal.
What does the UK law state?
Under the Suicide Act 1961 it is an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure a suicide or a suicide attempt in England and Wales.
What is the alternative?
Most patients will just wait to die naturally but there are an increasing number of UK citizens who want to go ahead with assisted suicide. A clinic in Switzerland called Dignitas allows patients to commit suicide in a safe environment with their family around them.
Over 100 UK citizens have been to Dignitas to end their life. Most of these patients need the help of their family members to get them to Switzerland in the first place. Although the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has investigated cases where UK citizens have committed assisted suicide, no relatives of the patients have been prosecuted.
What did Debbie Purdy want to clarify?
Purdy wanted to clarify how the DPP investigates these particular cases and how they make decisions whether to prosecute a relative or not. Debbie Purdy wants her husband to come to Switzerland with her when the time is right. However, she is not prepared to risk her husbands’ prosecution and wants to clarify what ‘aiding and abetting’ actually covers in the situation.
Lawyers for the DPP on the other hand state that the law is clear enough and the Suicide Act 1961 provides sufficient information.
Has anybody else questioned the law on this issue?
Diane Pretty questioned the law in 2001 when like Debbie Purdy she wanted a guarantee that her husband would not be prosecuted by the DPP if he helped her to die. She had motor neurone disease which had progressively become so bad that she was looked after 24-7 by her husband and nurses. She claimed that if she phyisically take her own life then she would as she wanted ‘a quick death without suffering at home surrounded by my family.’
The case made its way to the House of Lords who turned her case down. She continued to the European Courts of Human Rights yet she lost her case as they refused to find in the European Convention of Human Rights that she had a right to die.
However, the issue of assisted suicide is now subject to a government enquiry after the assisted suicide at Dignitas of Daniel James. He was a 23 year old rugby player from Worcester, UK when in March 2007 he suffered a collapsed spine whilst in a rugby scrum whilst training. This left him paralysed from the chest down.
He had a sound mind and was totally competent, but he personally decided that he wanted to die as he didn’t want to live a ‘second class existence.’ He strongly wanted to go to Dignitas and dies on the 12th September 2008.
An inquest into his death has been opened but was adjourned on the 19th September 2008. The results of the inquiry should be out at the beginning of 2009. The inquiry will look into clinics such as Dignitas, the procedure that takes place and the care and counselling that is provided to the patient.
What are the pros and cons of assisted suicide?
Go to the following websites to find out what the pros and cons are:
The balanced view: CLICK HERE
Against assisted suicide: CLICK HERE
Supporting assisted suicide: CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE to read the leading article – ‘MS sufferer loses her assisted suicide case’
To read my blog CLICK HERE
Tributes paid to the British aid worker who was shot dead in Kabul
By Laura Hawkins
l.hawkins@my.westminster.ac.uk
Where is Kabul?
Kabul is the capital city and also the largest city in Afghanistan. It has an estimated population of three million people.
What is ‘Serve Afghanistan?’
Serve Afghanistan is a UK registered Christian charity who have worked with Afghan refugees since 1980 in Pakistan and have moved to also help Afghans in Afghanistan. Since 2001 the Head Office of the charity has been in Kabul in Afghanistan.
The aim of the charity is to ‘express God’s love and bring hope by serving the people of Afghanistan, especially the needy, as we seek to address personal, social and environmental needs.’
What work do they do?
The charity works with Afghans who have disabilities to help them with community projects, community development, vocational training and education. Gayle worked for nearly two years in Kandahar and Kabul ‘directing projects to integrate the disabled into mainstream, education and provide them with opportunities for a better life.’
Why is there a war in Afghanistan?
The war started on October 7th 2001 when the USA and the UK launched their military operation into the country in response to the September 11th 2001 attacks on the USA. The aim of the invasion was to destroy al-Qaeda, capture Osama bin Laden and remove the Taliban regime that was present in the country and provided support to al-Qaeda.
Why was Gayle Williams shot dead?
In contrast to the initially reason and aim of starting the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban still have strong forces in the area and they admitted to shooting Gayle Williams because she was spreading Christianity. However ‘Serve Afghanistan’ denies this allegation.
CLICK HERE to read the leading article ‘Tributes paid to the British aid worker who was shot dead in Kabul.’
CLICK HERE to read my blog
Astonishing defeat as the House of Lords rejects 42-day detention without charge
By Laura Hawkins
l.hawkins@my.westminster.ac.uk
What is a terrorist?
There is not one universal definition of what a terrorist is and different countries and legislation will have different views. However they all agree that it ‘involves violence and the threat of violence’ as stated by Walter Laqueur a Terrorism Expert.
One reason why Governments may fail to accept one definition is that ‘the use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups.’ The question therefore regards the legitimacy of this violence and because it is usually state groups who write the definition, they are biased and need to be cautious not to classify themselves in that defintion.
The United Nations has not agreed to a definition of terrorism but in 2005, a UN panal stated that it was an act ‘intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.’
The European Union sets out a list of criminal offences which consitute terrorism under Article 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism but Britain has left their definition very broad as illustrated in the Terrorism Act 2000. The reason for this is so Britain has a broad scope with who the can legitmately detain and question regarding terrorism. Many suspects could be innocent where their human rights are breached, but they fall within the wide terrorism classification.
What is the Human Rights Act?
The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament which came into force in the UK on October 2nd 2000. The purpose of the Act is to ‘give further effect’ in UK law to the rights that come from the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is unlawful for any public body to act in a way that is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5 ECHR relates to the ‘liberty of the person.’ A state may act to detain someone only ‘in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.’
However, Article 15 ECHR allows the state to derogate from Article 5 in a ‘time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.’ There are many mixed views whether this derogation should be permitted. If an individual is a major threat, then the Government needs the power to control him and prevent him from doing any damage. However, often the individual may be innocent and if human rights are violated for no justified reason then the international human rights framework is not being enforced, as it should.
What is the history of detaining terror suspects?
In the case of Ireland v UK in 1972, it was illegal to hold a terror suspect for more than 48 hours without being charged. Since the terror attack on the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001, the UK Parliament has attempted to increase this period continuously as they claim that due to the complex and deeply involved schemes that terrorists plot, more time is needed to gather evidence and decode information before they can officially charge the person.
The most recent law to be passed was the Terrorism Act 2006 where the time that suspected terror suspects can be held without charge was raised from 14 days to 28 days.
The current government tried to extend this even further with the Counter Terrorism Bill which would extend it further to 42 days.
The House of Commons passed the proposal by a majority of nine in June 2008.
The House of Lords have rejected these plans and an emergency draft bill named ‘The Counter Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill’ will be ready and waiting for the time when or if the DPP needs it.
Views for and against detaining terror suspects for more than the current 28 days:
Reasons why more time is needed:
- It is argued that due t the scale and complexity of a terror case/plot, police need a lot more time in order to gather information and intelligence to then decide whether to charge or release the suspect.
- The government needs to protect the ‘rights of innocent civilians exposed to counter-terrorism violence.’
- Many investigations involve detailed computer evidence which includes encrypted forms that take huge efforts to decode so more time is needed.
- The Government is claiming that a 42-day detention would only take place in a ‘grave exceptional terrorist threat.’ Serious checks and safeguards would be put into place and the police would need to file a report as to the reasons why they needed the power. If the Home Secretary signed the report she would have to inform Parliament within 2 days and then both the House of Commons and the House of Lords would have to approve the extension.
- Some people believe such as former head of the Metropolitan Police Sir Iain Blair that powers and legislation should be passed now so that it is ready and waiting for when the police do need it in a time of an emergency.
Reasons why the terror suspects should not be detained for more than 28 days:
- It is claimed that the ‘majority of people arrested under terrorism laws are released without charge.’ It is therefore unfair and unjust to put them through an extra 14 days detention when most suspects are released because they are innocent.
- In November 2007, the director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, said prosecutors have “managed comfortably” with the existing 28-day limit.
- The human rights campaign group Liberty opposes the extension as it states that the UK already has the longest pre-charge detention period of 15 comparable democracies.
- The more that we legislate the more we are attacking our Human Rights. The Human Rights Act has been put in place for a reason and we should all be treated equally with regards to the Act.
- To ignore human rights and derogate from them whenever possible, we are also alienating the Muslim community even further who feel like they are the centre of much harassment involving terrorism.
- The Government needs to learn lessons from what happened regarding terrorism in Northern Ireland – fundamental rights were removed and ‘the creation of an entire suspect community achieved nothing but violence, fear, bitterness and…. an unbridgeable divide.’
CLICK HERE to view the leading article – ‘Astonishing defeat as the House of Lords rejects 42-day detention without charge.’
CLICK HERE to view my blog
UK banks receive £37bn bail-out from the UK government
By Laura Hawkins
l.hawkins@my.westminster.ac.uk
What is a credit crunch?
A credit crunch takes place when there is a sudden reduction of the general availability of loans and a sudden increase in the cost of obtaining loans from banks. This makes it a lot more difficult to borrow money from banks.
Definition: ‘a sever shortage of money or credit.’
When did it begin?
Economists say that it began between 2004 – 2006 when the US interest rates rose from 1% to 5 .35%. This lead to US house markets falling and citizens defaulting on their mortgages.
Many events with banks took place from April 2007. To see a timeline of these events, please CLICK HERE.
In the UK, on the 13th September 2007, the BBC reveals that Northern Rock have ‘been granted emergency financial support from the Bank of England’ as a last resort to save the Building Society.
On the 27th November 2007, the Bank of England states that the number of mortgage approvals has fallen to a three year low.
2nd May 2008 – Government figures show that more than 850 companies went into administration between January and March 2008.
Alistair Darling warns on the 30th August 2008 that ‘the economy is facing its worst crisis for 60 years.’
On the 15th September, Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy and is the first major bank to become bankrupt as a result of the credit crunch.
HBOS is taken over by Lloyds TSB on the 17th September 2008.
Bradford and Bingley is nationalised on 29th September 2008.
On the 13th October 2008, the UK government unveils a plan to inject £37bn into the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB and HBOS.
FOR A MORE DETAILED VERSION – CLICK HERE
What is the future?
Nobody can answer this question with certainty. Alistair Darling has stated that the current downturn could be more ‘profound and long-lasting’ than feared. It would seem certain now that the UK is going to experience a recession.
CLICK HERE to read the leading article ‘UK banks receive £37bn bail-out from the uk governement.’
CLICK HERE to read my blog
4 Responses to “Background Articles – UK News”