UK publishes new rules for assisted suicide

By GREGORY KATZ
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 25, 2010; 10:50 AM

LONDON -- New guidelines published Thursday offer people in England and Wales broad hints about how to help a gravely ill loved one end their life with minimal fear of prosecution.

Assisted suicide remains illegal, but Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said six factors would make it less likely that prosecutors would bring criminal charges in individual cases.

Starmer said prosecutors will still evaluate each case for possible prosecution. One key indicator: Whether the suspect was acting wholly out of compassion, or had a darker motive.

"The policy is now more focused on the motivation of the suspect rather than the characteristics of the victim," he said. "The policy does not change the law on assisted suicide. It does not open the door for euthanasia."

He said prosecutors will examine each case on its merits.

"In cases where there is enough evidence to justify a prosecution, we have to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute," he said. "That involves an exercise of discretion."

Starmer was forced to clarify the assisted suicide guidelines by the House of Lords, acting on behalf of multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, who wants her husband to be able to help her end her life at a time of her choosing without facing potential prosecution.

She said the new guidelines, which take effect immediately, would help her end her life when that time comes. Still, Purdy said an entirely new law governing assisted suicide is needed to replace the existing law written nearly 50 years ago.
ad_icon

"He has been able to differentiate clearly between malicious intent and compassionate support," she said of the chief prosecutor. "But I think we need a new law because interpretation and tweaking of the 1961 suicide act will never be enough."

She said tribunals should be established to study individual cases before a person commits suicide so family members and close friends can know where they stand legally before they take any action to assist in the suicide.

This is the view of Terry Pratchett, a well-loved British author suffering from early onset Alzheimer's disease.

"I would like to see death as a medical procedure - in very carefully chosen cases," said Pratchett, 61, who believes he should be able to legally end his life before the ravages of the disease leaves him helpless.

Starmer stressed that he was not decriminalizing assisted suicide or modifying the law on mercy killings, which have been the focus of intense media attention with the claim last week by a BBC television personality that he had killed his partner, who was gravely ill with AIDS.

But he said prosecution would be less likely in cases where the suspect was acting out of compassion.

He said other factors would also make criminal charges less likely, including victims who had made a voluntary and informed decision to end their lives, suspects who reported the suicide to police and admitted their role, and cases where a suspect tried in vain to convince the victim not to choose suicide.

Other mitigating factors that might make prosecution less likely include instances where the suspect provided only minor help in the suicide or was reluctant to provide assistance but did so in the face of persistent demands.

Still, Starmer stressed that prosecution is possible even if all of these factors apply.

He also listed 16 factors that would make criminal action more probable, including cases where the victim was under 18, did not have the capacity to make an informed decision to end their life or had been pressured by the suspect to commit suicide.

Prosecution would also be more likely in cases where the suspect had been guilty of violence or abuse toward the victim or when the victim did not seek the help of the suspect in the suicide.

In addition, earlier guidance that prosecution was less likely if a suspect was a family member or close friend of the victim was eliminated from Thursday's rules.
ad_icon

Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of Scope, a charity that works with the disabled, said the new guidelines threaten society's most vulnerable people.

"We do not support any weakening of the protection offered under the law on assisted suicide, which is exactly what these new guidelines do," Hawkes said.

"Many disabled people are frightened by the consequences of these new guidelines and with good reason. There is a real danger these changes will result in disabled people being pressured to end their lives," he added.


- I am very happy about these new rules because I personally believe that the laws preventing assisted suicide are ridiculous. Everyone has the right to end their own life, right? So in the case of a person with a terminal or extremely painful disease - who has the most valid reason of all to end their life but who is physically unable to - they cannot ask for the aid of a loved one? They should instead be forced to endure terrible pain until their natural death? Their loved ones should be forced to watch them waste away? Everywhere on Earth, people are taking life by force and no one seems to be doing much about that, and yet there's a strongly enforced law in existence that prevents a person from voluntarily ending their own life. It's unbelievably cruel to not even give these people the freedom to choose for themselves. So I think these rules will help to give people in unbearably difficult situations a little relief, knowing that their loved ones will be safe from prosecution as long as the court sees the motive as compassionate, which obviously it would be, unless the assisted suicide is done by a person who's merely seeking money or some other personal gain; in which case, they should be charged. I don't think this will put pressure on disabled people to end their lives, I think it will just give them options. If they want to continue living, that's awesome, but if their disease is too much to bear, they should be able to end their lives on their own terms, without enduring needless months or years of pain and misery.

Iran 'to build two new nuclear sites this year'

The head of Iran's nuclear programme has said the country will build two new uranium enrichment facilities within the next year.

Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also Iran's vice-president, said the new facilities would be built in the mountains to protect them from attack.

The UN nuclear watchdog last week said it was concerned Iran might currently be trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's supreme leader denied the enrichment of uranium was for weapons.

Tehran has always maintained that its nuclear programme is peaceful.

But the US and other nations, which fear Iran is seeking nuclear arms, have been pressing for the UN to impose further sanctions over the issue.

Baseless' fears

Mr Salehi said the facilities would use new and more advanced centrifuges, according to the semi-official Iranian news agency Isna.

The two sites are reportedly the first of 10 to be built in a plan announced by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last November.

The centrifuges might allow the Iranians to speed up the development of nuclear material.

Tehran has said it wants to enrich uranium to 20%, more than it has previously done.

The country says it is doing this to produce isotopes for medical use and to generate electricity.

But according to an unusually forthright report by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released last week, Iran's level of co-operation with the agency is decreasing, adding to concerns about "possible military dimensions" to its nuclear programme.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said any fears were "baseless", as Iranians' beliefs "bar us from using such weapons".

Last year Iran revealed a previously unknown nuclear facility in the mountains near the city of Qom.

Previously it was believed that the only type of centrifuge Iran possessed were decades-old and in the the country's main enrichment facility at Natanz, which is monitored by the IAEA.

The facility near Qom had not become operational before its existence was announced.




- While I'd really like to give Iran the benefit of the doubt and believe that their nuclear activities are purely peaceful, it seems a little hard to believe. The fact that there will be so many sites scattered around Iran is a little unsettling in itself, but based on Iran's history with nuclear weapons, I think that the concern being demonstrated by other countries is understandable. However, the fact that they only want to enrich uranium to 20%, significantly less than the approximately 85% normally seen in nuclear weapons, helps to put my mind at ease somewhat. For the moment at least, I think Iran should be able to continue what they're doing because they haven't come close to doing anything wrong as of right now. I think it's important to keep an eye on this sort of nuclear activity, though, and monitor it to make sure it doesn't escalate into something far from peaceful.

US refuses to cancel Obama's Dalai Lama meeting

By Stephen Collinson (AFP) – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The United States on Friday escalated a mounting row on multiple fronts with China, refusing Beijing's demand to cancel President Barack Obama's meeting next week with the Dalai Lama.

The deepening public spat over Tibet, a row over US arms sales to Taiwan, China's dispute with Google and trade and currency disagreements, come at a key diplomatic moment, as Obama seeks Chinese help to toughen sanctions on Iran.

The White House announced Thursday that Obama would hold his long-awaited meeting with the revered Dalai Lama at the White House next week, drawing an angry reaction from China and a demand for the invitation to be rescinded.

But Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs signalled the White House would defy China's warning that the encounter would damage already strained Sino-US relations.

"I do not know if their specific reaction was to cancel it," Gibbs said.

"If that was their specific reaction, the meeting will take place as planned next Thursday."

Obama avoided the Dalai Lama when he was in Washington in 2009, in an apparent bid to set relations with Beijing off on a good foot in the first year of a presidency which included several meetings with President Hu Jintao.

But he warned Chinese leaders on an inaugural visit to Beijing in November that he intended to meet the Buddhist monk.

China's foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said earlier that Beijing firmly opposed "the Dalai Lama visiting the United States and US leaders having contact with him."

"China urges the US... to immediately call off the wrong decision of arranging for President Obama to meet with the Dalai Lama... to avoid any more damage to Sino-US relations."

The Dalai Lama fled Tibet into exile in India in 1959, after a failed uprising against Chinese rule. He denies he wants independence for Tibet, insisting he is looking only for "meaningful autonomy."

Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama will take place in the White House Map Room and not, in an apparent effort to mollify China, in the Oval Office, where US presidents normally meet VIPs and visiting government chiefs.

The Obama administration has insisted disputes over Tibet, Taiwan, currency and Google will not hamper efforts to win the support of China, a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, on toughened nuclear sanctions against Iran.

China has yet to agree to the concept of toughened sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, calling for more negotiations, even as Russia appears closer to backing the move to punish Tehran.

US officials say that the Sino-US relationship is mature enough to override disagreements on key issues but the temperature of public disagreements has risen sharply in recent days.

The powers have clashed over a 6.4-billion-dollar US arms deal for Taiwan, with China accusing the United States of violating the "code of conduct between nations" with the sale to what it sees as a Chinese territory.

Beijing also has been angered by Washington's support for Google after the web giant announced it would no longer abide by China's strict Internet censorship rules and could quit the country over cyberattacks.

The foreign ministry denied involvement in the hacking of Gmail accounts and accused Washington of "double standards" after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the restrictions on China's 384 million Internet users.

Earlier this month, Obama said he planned to be "much tougher" about enforcing trade rules with China, and favoured constant pressure on Beijing over opening markets and on currency rates.

China responded by dismissing US "wrongful accusations and pressure."



- To me it seems like lately there's always another issue causing tension between the U.S. and China, whether it be this one or the Google incident or whatever else. In this case, I can understand why China is upset, but also why Obama is standing his ground. To China it's like the U.S. is joining forces with one of its enemies, but why would Obama avoid the Dalai Lama when his country has no issue with the man? It makes sense that the U.S. president would want to keep his meeting with the Dalai Lama, but if he's requesting China's help, he should perhaps avoid doing things that cause even more tension between the two countries.