Assisted self-murder box kin might not be charged

Thrilled: Campaigner Debbie Purdy and her husband, musician Omar Puente

Helping a loved one to commit suicide out of compassion will no longer invite court action.

Rules set down by the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday remove the risk of a trial and up to 14 years in jail.

Even those who stand to gain financially from the will of someone they help to die can expect to avoid prosecution as long as they can show they were motivated by love and not by greed.

The guidelines sent out to prosecutors by Keir Starmer effectively mean the law will turn a blind eye to assisted suicide.

This is despite the fact that the Suicide Act of 1961 which makeshelping someone to kill themselves a serious crime remains unchanged.

Mr Starmers statement saw him drop some of the most controversialprovisions from the first draft of the guidelines he issued lastSeptember.

Campaigners had protested against clauses saying that prosecutorswere not to pursue those who helped the disabled or dying to killthemselves.

Mr Starmer removed the clauses, accepting that they discriminate against the disabled.

Proposals for more lenient treatment for close relatives have alsogone, following protests that spouses and family members can act out ofmalice or greed.

Mr Starmers guidelines were drawn up at the request of Law Lords,who ruled last summer in the case of dignity-in-dying campaigner DebbiePurdy.

Final guidelines: Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer yesterday

The MS sufferer had asked the courts for advice on whether herhusband would be prosecuted if he helped her to travel to the Dignitassuicide clinic in Zurich.

Mr Starmer said yesterday that mercy killing remains murder and thatall cases where someone is suspected of assisting a suicide will befully investigated.

;The policy is now more focused on the motivation of the suspect rather than the characteristics of

the victim, he added. The policy does not change the law onassisted suicide. It does not open the door for euthanasia. It does notoverride the will of Parliament.

;What it does do is to provide a clear framework for prosecutors todecide which cases should proceed to court and which should not.

Mr Starmer set down 16 factors that would tend to lead to aprosecution of those who help with a suicide, and six that would argueagainst a prosecution.

Medics, suicide campaigners, clinic owners, those who help childrenand youngsters die, violent bullies and those who try to persuadesomeone to kill themselves would all face trial.

But those who are motivated by compassion, Mr Starmers rules say,can expect leniency even if the person they help to commit suicide ishealthy and far from death.

Disability charities are concerned that the guidelines could be used to pressure the vulnerable into death.

Richard Hawkes, of Scope, said: ;We understand that assisted suicide is a complex and emotional issue.

However, we do not support any weakening of the protectionoffered under the law on assisted suicide, which is exactly what thesenew guidelines do.

;Many disabled people are frightened by the consequences of thesenew guidelines and with good reason.

"There is a real danger thesechanges will result in disabled people being pressured to end theirlives.

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Care Not Killing campaign group, said thefinal rules were an improvement on those published in September.

But he added: ;How will a prosecutor decide if someones motives are wholly compassionate?

;How can he tell? The key witness is dead.

Church of England leaders said they were satisfied with the safeguards in the guidelines.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Reverend Michael Scott-Joynt,said: ;I dont believe the policy amounts to a change in the law.

;They contain a very strong presumption that assisted suicide willbe prosecuted. Author Sir Terry Pratchett, an Alzheimers sufferer whohas campaigned for a system of tribunals to regulate legalisedeuthanasia, said the rules were a small step in the right direction.

;They dont conform to my distant goal of what I want but I think itrepresents probably the best that we can get without a change in thelaw, he said.

;It doesnt look like such a tick box exercise as it used to. There are some very sensible things that avoid controversy.

;It has been realised that if a well-meaning wife helps a husbandwho is relatively determined to see his life ended she might wellbenefit but, as I understand it, if she has acted compassionately shewill be safe from prosecution.

How two mothers forced a change in the rules

Two court cases have brought the ;right to die issue into sharp focus. They illustrated the ethical arguments and emotions of the debate and compelled a clarification of the guidelines on assisted suicide:

Kay Gilderdale was cleared by a jury last month of the murder of her incurably ill daughter Lynn.

Under the new guidelines, it would have been possible for Mrs Gilderdale to have escaped prosecution.

Lynn, 31, who had been suffering for 17 years from the chronic fatigue disease ME, injected herself with morphine in December 2008.

Write caption here

This action followed a previous suicide attempt and her repeated insistence that she wished to die.

Her mother tried to talk her out of killing herself, but after an hour gave her further drugs to ease death. Mrs Gilderdale, 55, admitted assisted suicide.

The Director of Public Prosecutions decided that she should stand trial for murder because of uncertainty over whether it was the drug she injected that ultimately caused death.

Two judges, including the trial judge, criticised the decision to bring the charge. Under the new guidelines, Mrs Gilderdale might still be prosecuted for murder if it was thought that her actions were responsible for the death.

But the compassionate circumstances of the case would mean she would be unlikely to be prosecuted.

Very different is the case of Frances Inglis, who injected her brain-damaged son Thomas with heroin to free him from a ;living hell of permanent disability, disfigurement and round-the-clock care.

The 22-year-old had been in a coma for nearly 18 months after hitting his head in a fall.

His mother had already made one attempt to kill him with heroin before she succeeded in November 2008.

She had discovered that the only legal way for her son to die would have been through gaining permission to withdraw his water and food.

She could not bear him to suffer in this way.

Mrs Inglis, 57, was found guilty of murder and the trial judge told her ;you cannot take the law into your own hands.

She was given a minimum of nine years in jail. She would find no protection from Mr Starmers guidelines.

They apply only to those who help in suicides, not mercy killings, and Thomas had never expressed a wish for suicide.