Lawyers seek clarification in 'Right To Die' case

Lawyers for a British man in his forties who has locked-in syndrome, following a devastating stroke 3 years ago, will go to the High Court on Friday 27 January 2012 to seek clarification from the Court as to whether they and medical experts can continue to act on his behalf, as he seeks to end his own life.

The decision could mean all doctors being able to discuss the options available should a patient express a wish to end their own life. The other parties involved are the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the solicitors' own regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the General Medical Council (GMC).

The man, who cannot be named but is known as AM or Martin, is unable to move and only able to communicate by moving his eyes. In August 2011 he launched a landmark legal bid to gain professional assistance to end his own life.

Given the extent of AM's disability and with no family member able to assist, the judicial review seeks to allow professionals including lawyers and doctors to give him advice and to assist him where necessary, in whatever steps he choose to take, to end his life.

The interim hearing on 27 January 2012 will determine whether the professionals involved in his case can continue to prepare an application for judicial review on AM's behalf. This preparation would include researching for AM, and discussing with him, what options he has to end his life.

For example, instructing suitably qualified and concerned senior doctors to advise AM about the options he has to end his life, and to write a report for Dignitas about his prognosis so Dignitas can advise whether their service is available to AM.

As things stand, these actions could currently be seen as assisting in AM's suicide. If this interim decision is successful in AM's favour, it would mean that all doctors could discuss with patients the options available to them should the patient express a wish to end their own lives.

This case differs from the that of Tony Nicklinson, heard earlier this week, as AM is not requesting a change in the law - he is not asking that the 'common law defence of necessity' is applied in his case.

Instead, AM is simply asking that the DPP amend his current guidance regarding assisted suicide, so if professionals were to help him to end his life, they would not face criminal and/or disciplinary action.

Without such help from professionals, AM will not be able to fulfil his wish, to end his life. No family member is willing to help him do this. The latest guidance on assisted dying from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in February 2010 states that whilst each case should be examined on its merits.

If the victim had a settled wish to die and the person assisting the suicide was acting out of compassion, then it might be against the public interest to prosecute.

It includes a list of factors which make prosecution more or less likely. These factors favour friends or relatives of the victim. People working with the victim in a professional capacity are not favoured and would be likely to face prosecution.

In a painstakingly written statement to the Court from AM using a specialist computer operated by his eyes, he expressed the love he has for his wife who is also his carer and for his family. But he explains that he finds his life and his condition following his stroke to be undignified, distressing and intolerable and that he does not wish to continue to live in this way.

AM requires constant care and is entirely dependent upon others for every aspect of his life. The bloodclot at the bottom of his skull, which is believed to have caused the stroke AM suffered, is thought to have formed following a sports injury sustained when he was eighteen years old.

Head of the Human Rights team at Leigh Day & Co, Richard Stein who is representing AM in his legal fight said:

"We felt this preliminary step was absolutely necessary to seek clarity from the DPP as well as the regulatory bodies, to which all involved belong, to ensure that we are not breaking the law. At the moment, even if we were to mention the name Dignitas to our client we could be accused of assisting in his suicide and face disciplinary action.

Rosa Curling, also of the Leigh Day & Co's Human Rights team said: "We feel a great professional duty to assist our client but we have to make sure that the steps he has asked us to take, won't result in any criminal and/or disciplinary action being taken against us or the doctors involved."