WHY SHOULD WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DIE?

Savulescu’s explanation is threefold. Firstly, because some lives become so painful due to illness that they are no longer worth living. Secondly, humans should have the right to determine our own lives, including how we die. This is a matter of free will and self-determination. Lastly, one of things that matters most to people is how and when they die. The state has no right to compel us to anything, when we are not harming other people, including continuing to live.

WHO OPPOSES CHANGE, AND WHY?

Opposition to change in the law is led by religious groups who subscribe to the sanctity of life at all costs, says Savulescu. He is of the opinion that religious views are being imposed on those who have different, non-religious values. Some view this as a new form of discrimination against the non-religious. The issue is particularly divisive and provocative because it involves killing human beings, including, those who are frail and sick.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST?

Pro-life groups such as the Medical Ethics Alliance affirm the unique value of all human life, its God given dignity as giving rise to a consequent right to protection in law. They argue that all persons are of inestimable worth, irrespective of illness or disability. Furthermore, another fear is that a right to die could lead to pressure on those who are vulnerable, such as the elderly and dependent, to take their own lives to avoid being a burden on others. Savulescu argues however that such anxieties are better addressed by proper legislation than forcing those with terrible lives to live against their will.

IS THERE SUPPORT FOR A RIGHT TO DIE?

Savulescu says he is one of a growing number that believe rational people wish to control the circumstances of the end of their lives. “It is only a matter of time before assisted suicide and euthanasia are permitted, if we are a sane, humanitarian society. It is “playing God” to compel people to live, to deny people the means to end their lives in a dignified and compassionate way. It should and will be that each of us decides for his or her own life how and when we die.” This view was reflected in the 1996 British Social Attitudes Survey which, found that 82% of the public believe people suffering from painful, incurable diseases should have the right to ask their doctors for help to die. Every opinion poll since then has produced similar results. There are a number of groups such as Dignity in Dying who devote themselve to canvassing for a change in the law.

WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW?

Dignity in Dying, a group at the forefront of those campaigning for a right to die claim that the current law is uncertain and arbitrary. Changing attitudes and the sensitive nature of the issue mean there is a dicrepancy between what the law says and what the law does. The current law, they say, inflicts a terrible ethical dilemnia on patients, families and doctors resulting in covert euthanasia, mercy killings and premature suicides. Furthemore, an increasing number of UK citizens are travelling to Dignitas, an organisation in Switzerland that helps people to die. About 30 UK citizens have died there. Family members who accompany them can be prosecuted under the Suicide Act 1961. Dignitas has however come under criticism for assisting the suicides of people who are not terminally ill and not mentally competent.

HOW HAS THIS WORKED IN PRACTICE?

In October 2008, MS sufferer Diane Purdy lost a high court case in which her legal team argued the right to respect for her private and personal life, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was being breached because of lack of clarity in the law. At the case Lord Justice Scott Baker expressed, “great sympathy for Ms Purdy, her husband and others in a similar position who wish to know in advance whether they will face prosecution for doing what many would regard as something that the law should permit, namely to help a loved one go abroad to end their suffering when they are unable to do it on their own. This would involve a change in the law. The offence of assisted suicide is very widely drawn to cover all manner of different circumstances; only Parliament can change it.”

After nine months of deliberation, the Organ Donation Taskforce recommended to the government this week not to change the law to presume all organs are a donation upon death unless instructed otherwise. Ostensibly, this would seem like an admirable solution to the clear problem concerning organ donation. The lack of donors in the UK is a major issue; we currently have the lowest donor rates per capita within Europe. More than 1,000 people have died in the past year while waiting for a new organ, despite more than one million new donors registering.

The issue of trust has emerged to be at the crux of the debate surrounding presumed consent. Fears abound that the Prime Minister is attempting to nationalise our bodies.

There are also concerns surrounding government’s habit of losing data, particularly given the sensitive nature of donor records. But the primary concern regarding trust lies with doctors and medical officials. The image of doctors wheeling patients off to die in an operating theatre, scalpels at the ready, pertains. This is underlined by the belief that doctors will place a higher value on the life of those patients requiring life-saving organs, rather than fairly distributing their efforts to all of those in need. Although unlikely, the fear that a doctor could defend the life of a potential donor with less passion is a potent argument against any organ donation, but particularly against presumed consent.

The idea that a lack of opposition equals ‘informed consent’ is a key problem with ‘presumed consent’. While organ donation is widely publicised, the socially disadvantaged are less likely to be aware of their rights, and less confident in defending them if their organs are assumed to be a donation. Of greater concern are those who choose to opt out. Would they be a lower priority to receive organs should they need them? While we think of organ donation as morally upstanding, many prefer not to, and should not be judged on this matter of conscience.

The real issue is that we don’t talk about this problem enough. Our families rarely know our wishes and so could not enact them, should they need to. The head of the British Medical Association, a supporter of presumed consent, has highlighted the need to discuss organ donation with friends and family, as education alone has not raised the issue prominently enough. Undoubtedly further publicity, education and openness regarding organ donation will help; presumed consent is not the answer we’re searching for.

In January this year I was arrested after attempting to throw a bottle of water to a man protesting against the felling of around 40 mature trees in Oxford city centre. He had been cut off by a steel fence and council-hired security guards. The reason for my arrest – ‘littering’ – was clearly absurd, and I was released a few hours later without charge. I subsequently sought legal advice and received £1500 compensation in an out of court settlement.

Perhaps I was merely the unfortunate victim of an over-enthusiastic officer? A video which was filmed before my arrest would indicate not; in it, a policeman specifically states that anyone attempting to throw supplies up to the tree will be arrested for littering.

In fact, police repression of political protest is a remarkably common hassle for those involved. At this summer’s ‘Camp for Climate Action’ near Kingsnorth Power Station, Kent Police launched one of their biggest ever operations. They enacted a ‘Checkpoint Charlie’ near the entrance to the camp, and everybody entering or exiting was stopped and searched. On one occasion I had a black marker pen confiscated, due to its alleged potential for criminal damage. Another time it cost me three searches and over an hour to get bread 500 metres from a van into the site.

The police made ample use of their helicopter, regularly flying low over the site, which caused real disruption to meetings and discussion groups. Early on in the week they got a warrant to search every single tent on the site. They confiscated wood which was needed to build toilets, ropes for the marquees and piping for the water infrastructure. Those who peacefully resisted were hit with batons, pepper sprayed and arrested.

Their keenness to be on site continued throughout the week, with a series of 5 AM attempted incursions which kept everyone on edge and made it difficult to get a good nights sleep. The local MP visited the site and told the BBC he found the use of riot gear “incomprehensible”.

Another tactic used against protesters is surveillance.

Police Forward Intelligence Teams regularly attend demonstrations with huge video and still cameras. They are not simply interested in your photo, they want to know who you talk to and who talks to you. The focus is on trying to find ‘the leaders’ – key people to target for intimidation, arrest and prosecution. In recent anti-arms events in Brighton, they have forced anyone ‘masked up’ to show their face or be arrested.

We are told that the police are a ‘force for good’, that they protect upstanding citizens from the horrors of serious crime. This may be the case, but they are also heavily involved in protecting the government and corporations from peaceful protesters exercising their right to free speech, often acting illegally on or extremely dubious legal ground.

As shown by a £5.9 million spend at climate camp this year, the police see it as their role to prevent any form of civil disobedience taking place. In written evidence recently submitted to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, a member of the camp’s legal team noted that this strategy is vastly different from the 1990s, where police would generally intervene only if there was actual evidence of an offence being committed.

I was able to get compensation following my arrest because it was clearly unlawful. Recently the law has come out in favour of the six Greenpeace protesters who climbed the smokestack at Kingsnorth and caused £30,000 worth of damage by painting “GORDON” down its side. They were acquitted by a Crown Court jury on the basis that their actions to shut down the power station protected property in immediate danger due to climate change.

This is a fantastic victory, and whilst it does not set a legal precedent, it will no doubt give confidence to campaigners who are working to take action on climate change. However, the law does not always protect our civil rights.

On the 7th of December 2005, Maya Evans became the first person to be convicted under Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). Whilst the name of the SOCPA doesn’t sound like it deals with peaceful protesters, Section 132 makes it illegal to hold a demonstration within approximately 1 mile of Parliament without first seeking police permission. Maya Evans was arrested whilst standing at Whitehall’s cenotaph to read the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. People have subsequently been threatened with arrest for eating a cake with the word “PEACE” on it, and holding a blank placard.

Whilst many will never face such intimidation, those who stand up for their own rights, both through legal channels and straightforward dissent, are also standing up for your rights, whether the issue is the environment, peace, animal rights, or anything else. Whenever a single person’s freedom is undermined we all suffer.