I think I have finally understood why the government wants to move the Law Lords out of the House of Lords and into their own building.

Because people still confuse the Law Lords with the House of Lords.

You said “finally”, as if the Law Lords have been refusing to look at the issue – but they haven’t.

You implied an ironic link between their decision and that of the House of Lords – when the Law Lords rarely interfere in the law making process within the Chamber.

The decision taken by the Law Lords is indeed an excellent one – but it is a pity you couldn’t resist making a silly snipe at them in the process.

Your statement that safeguards would ensure that pressure wouldn’t be put on the disabled and terminally ill is rather glib. At a time when we are told that society can no longer afford the care of the elderly and disabled, and families are faced with massive bills to provide care privately, it’s difficult to see what those safeguards would be.

As someone who suffered a similar injury to David James and would willingly have followed the same path in the first few months after injury, I think the only safeguard there was at the time was that it never occurred to me that assisted suicide was an option.

In today’s climate, where ‘economically inactive’ incapacity benefit claimants are the modern pariahs, and where social care is an increasing burden on families there is tremendous internal pressure on those who are dependent on others to consider just what value society puts on their lives.

It is, perhaps, not just coincidence that this cause has hit the headlines at a time when the costs to the economy of the long-term care has become such an issue.

I don’t like the comparisons with abortion – this issue is very different. For a start, the person contemplating suicide is, erm, born – so there should be absolutely zero debate over whether they are a person, and they are most definitely not a part of someone else’s body.

I also don’t think the main reason why voluntary euthanasia isn’t legal in this country is because there’s no party advantage to be gained for either main party. I imagine there are a great number of MPs who are genuinely undecided on this issue and don’t want to have to make a decision. There just isn’t enough moral certainty for the great drive that would be needed to push through such controversial reforms. And for good reason – it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to know whether the likelihood of some (and how many?) people terminating their lives for “bad” reasons is outweighed by the benefits in reduced suffering and empowerment through personal decision-making. Now I can see how a diehard liberal or libertarian might quibble with what’s understood by a “bad” reason and attach more value to the empowerment through personal decision-making, but for me that balance is more difficult and I’ve no idea what to think.

I’m a big supporter of the right to die, I want it and although I’m hopefully a way off death, I want to live in a country that supports an individuals right to end their own life.

I certainly support the right to die, but I also like the idea of making it quite difficult and leaving a degree of ambiguity as to whether those involved might or might not be prosecuted, so that only those who are *absolutely* determined to do so go ahead, and to avoid the risk of pressure being put on inconvenient or wealthy relatives…so I’m not 100% sure about this judgement…though on balance support it…on balance.

The ‘right to die’ is a right to live with dignity and self-determination until that is no longer possible.

I’d love the right to die but my bets are on them winning the next election

I’m a big supporter of the right to die, I want it and although I’m hopefully a way off death, I want to live in a country that supports an individuals right to end their own life.

Same here…

“I’d love the right to die but my bets are on them winning the next election”

Lol, I was enjoying the ambiguity too.

Ian: Actually I made that point clear in the original but the editor decided to snip that piece out ;). I also meant finally in that they’d overruled the two previous rulings against Purdy. http://www.septicisle.info/2009/07/right-to-die.html

Charlie and Tim: I more than understand your points, but I think if we look especially at how the Death with Dignity Act has worked in Oregon, then you’ll find that the numbers using it were much lower than expected and that it’s not impacted and pressurised the vulnerable into ending their lives prematurely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Death_with_Dignity_Act http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/

I think you also only have to look at the front page of the Daily Mail today to note that there are also the usual powerful interests that are deeply opposed to individuals making a personal choice for themselves. Debbie Purdy’s whole case is built around the fact that she doesn’t want to die until her multiple sclerosis becomes too much to bear; the ambiguity of the law until yesterday meant she would have killed herself sooner so as to protect her husband from prosecution, a position which no one would surely want to defend as the status quo.

Just realised, you could read the title of this post as…

Allowing “the Right” to die.

Now that I’d read about…