In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords
added a new safeguard to the proposed right-to-die law:
"consent of the High Court (Family Division)".
This would mean that the patient who has less than 6 months to live
would be able to ask the
permission of a judge
in order to be permitted to end his or her life
by taking lethal chemicals prescribed by a doctor.
This provision might never become law.
The gentle-poison, right-to-die proposal
was overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons in 2015.
But it does illustrate one way of asking about the legality of choosing
death. If a judge has reviewed the
case and agreed that death is a legal
choice,
then there would never be any worry
that anyone would be charged with committing a crime
if the plans for death were carried forward as presented to the judge.
Under this proposal in the United Kingdom,
the judge would be charged with evaluating the request for death
with respect to four criteria:
Is the request by the patient completely voluntary?
(Or might there be some coercion or manipulation by anyone else?)
Is the request by the patient absolutely clear?
(Or is there some ambiguity about how the request was made or recorded?)
Is the request by the patient settled
and consistent?
(Or might the passage of time reverse or revise the request?)
Is the request by the patient well informed?
(Or does the patient misunderstand some material facts?)
A judge who has some experience with right-to-die
cases
would be called upon to issue a considered judgment
that the proposed life-ending decision is wise—and
most-important legal.
The law behind this safeguard seems to be the right to choose suicide.
The judge is not called upon to evaluate any of the medical facts.
But two physicians are required to certify that the patient is
terminally ill.
Seeking judicial
consent would probably include
presenting to the judge
all of the safeguards already fulfilled in the process of planning this
death.
A well-organized set of documents supporting the life-ending decision
might be sufficient (without any additional testimony) for the judge to
agree.
One problem with this proposed safeguards would be costs.
Would the patient and family be required to hire a lawyer
to present all of the facts and professional recommendations to the
judge?
Or could a more informal process be permitted
for getting the approval of a judge for the life-ending decision?
Would some people just commit suicide on their own
because asking a judge seems so irreverent to their present crisis?
We know that some complicated right-to-die cases
have eventually been decided by judges.
These were cases in which people disagreed about what to do.
And each side did hire lawyers to argue their case.
Would it sometimes be complicated to get a judge to
approve?
Would at least two sides have to be presented?
Would judges be especially trained to handle end-of-life cases?
If a judge has reviewed a plan for death and found no problems,
would that end the case?
Would everyone thereafter be immune
from prosecution?
Recommended Safeguard S (of this book) asks for a
review
by the public prosecutor
or a private lawyer
to determine the legal
status of the request for death.
In many countries, an evaluation by some local authority
might be better than involving some higher judicial authority.
Judges are often over-scheduled,
leading to lengthy delays
in the legal process.
But prosecutors and/or other lawyers
might be more ready to examine local end-of-life decisions.
In some locations, judges are elected public
officials.
The desire to avoid a campaign issue might distort any judicial
process.
The public is often divided about the right-to-die.
We would not want life-or-death decisions for any patient
to be influenced by worries
about votes in the next election for judge.
If any jurisdiction does allow or require a judicial
review,
we will see how well that works in practice.
And other places on the Earth can either adapt that practice
or avoid such
complications if judicial review proves to be unworkable.
HOW GETTING THE APPROVAL OF A JUDGE
DISCOURAGES IRRATIONAL SUICIDE
AND OTHER FORMS OF PREMATURE DEATH
As said before in connection with other safeguards,
suicidal people are very
unlikely to seek judicial consent
for their plan to kill themselves for reasons that the judge
might find foolish and/or out of touch with reality.
But if a somewhat-suicidal person were to collect
arguments for a judge,
he or she might realize that the case for immediate death is weak.
And the very process of putting the facts into a submission for the
judge
might take enough time for the suicidal urge to pass.
Created February 21,
2015; revised 2-24-2015; 2-27-2015; 7-9-2015; 10-31-2015; 7-29-2016; 1-5-2018;
5-15-2020;
In 2016, the House of Lords renewed its right-to-die bill,
which includes 13 safeguards for life-ending decisions.
It is now called assisted
dying.