LAWYERS from the Christian Legal Centre, headed by the ghastly Andrea Minichiello Williams, are demanding that new assisted suicide guidelines – published today – be put on hold because of Lord Phillips’ personal sympathy those calling for the rules to be relaxed.
Andrea Minichiello Williams
The new guidance was drawn up by the Crown Prosecution Service after Lord Phillips, with four other Law Lords, backed a call by Debbie Purdy, a multiple sclerosis sufferer, for a policy statement from the CPS on assisted suicide at the end of July.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph‘s columnist Mary Riddell on Sept 11, Lord Phillips said he felt “enormous sympathy” for terminally ill patients who wanted to end their own lives in assisted suicides.
He added that he sympathised with people facing a “quite hideous termination of their life” as a result of “horrible diseases” who wanted to avoid a prolonged death and spare their relatives pain or distress.
The CLC, according to the Telegraph, is now claiming that these remarks showed that Lord Phillips had allowed his personal views to colour his judgement in the Purdy case – which overturned two early decisions by more junior courts – as the country’s senior Law Lord.
They are calling for the Purdy case to be reviewed by Britain’s new Supreme Court, of which Lord Phillips is president, and are threatening to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Williams, Director of the centre, said:
It is inappropriate for a judge to participate in a case in which he has strong views. It [the interview] raises serious questions over impartiality with regard to Lord Phillips. Justice must be seen to be done. He [Lord Phillips] should be showing a clear lack of impartiality. These are fundamental issues that affect life. They are a matter of life and death.
DPP Keir Starmer
In the light of Lord Phillips’s reported statements we are concerned that the Judgment delivered by him on 30th July may have involved actual or apparent bias, having been coloured by his personal view of the issue underlying Ms Purdy’s Appeal, namely, assisted suicide. We therefore propose, as a matter of urgency, to seek legal opinion as to the integrity of the Judgment and as to whether an Appeal against it might be made to the European Court of Human Rights under the terms of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But UK Supreme court spokesman pointed out:
Lord Phillips has not called for a change in the law. In an interview he gave after the judgment was handed down he simply expressed sympathy with anyone who was considering ending their life because they had a terminal illness. He made it clear that this was his personal view.
The Law Lords, led by Lord Phillips, had required Mr Starmer
To prepare an offence-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances which he will take into account in deciding, in a case such as Ms Purdy’s, whether or not to consent to a prosecution.
The spokesman added:
At present, there is simply not sufficiently clear or relevant guidance available as to how the discretion given to the Director is to be exercised.
Assisted suicide campaigners have welcomed today’s legal clarifications making it easier for those helping a relative end their life to know if they would face prosecution. Ms Purdy said:
They seem great because it gives confidence to people like me that we cannot make a decision immediately.
Assisted suicide campaign group Dignity in Dying described the move as “sensible” and a “significant breakthrough for greater patient choice and protection at the end of life”. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said:
In order to protect the public there will understandably be some situations were prosecutions are warranted. The guidelines sensibly distinguish between compassionate behaviour and behaviour which is potentially malicious.
But writing in the Telegraph today, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, said:
As a country, we need to appreciate the sanctity of the human person and their uniqueness. Christians believe that their lives are given by God and that everyone has an important role to play in society. We do not believe that we own our individual lives and therefore we believe we should not choose to end them deliberately. I understand that others, especially those with terminal diseases, may take an alternative view, but I remain opposed to any move to legalise assisted suicide.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Note to the pious: If you don't want to use assisted suicide, then don't. Go right ahead: indulge in your culture of misery.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I dont think Williams has bothered to read legal clarifications – well she has, but ignored the conclusions. They talk about compassion, something Williams may not recognise, as she refers to arrows in her back not realising they have been self inflicted.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
As the case of "Lady" Scotland has shown yet again, there is a law that the common (wo)man must obey and another for those who make the law that can be dismissed as an "oversight". Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to have a law that allows those of us who do not have a religion of any description to have assisted suicide, while those holier-than-thou Christians must suffer to the bitter end. Or make attempted suicide a capital offence where the "criminal" is given a deadly potion to drink.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:38 am
If Mrs. Williams thinks her maker wants her to suffer if she ever gets some horrible disease, she should be allowed to do so. I think that if you care about people you wish them a speedy and painless end, unlike some sick 'gods' and their followers that seem to be around.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:52 am
John Sentamu is SUCH a hypocrite!
If lives are "given by God" and cannot be owned, how on earth can he justify Christianity's close to 1500 years of atrocities ranging from child rape, over torture to burning people alive?
My life belongs to me – my body belongs to me – and I am getting very sick of pious shamans telling me what they think I may do with it. Every step forward brings them out of the woodwork to try and drag us back down to their level.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Someone should also point out to John Sentamu that what Christians believe is neither here nor there. They could believe life began in a bowl of ministrone soup; that doesn't mean that it actually did. Also, it amused me that he admitted that he thinks that he is a slave and, to read between the lines, that this is a good thing.
I don't normally pity people, but for people who think like that, I do.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:34 am
That's a good one, Neuseline. I always wondered, when suicide was "against the law" (ie condemned by the Church), what possible logic there could be in punishing someone who had attempted to take his own life. Only a very bitter and twisted person would see any benefit in that!
September 24th, 2009 at 10:35 am
John Sentamu is just a self-publicist. He'll pontificate on anything he gets the chance to – ideally with a large picture of him in his silly outfit.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Careful now David L……you wouldn't want to show any signs of being a sympathetic person. But then, what kind of monsters have no sympathy for those with very painful terminal disease? Ah yes, christians. As pointed out above, no-one is forced to commit suicide. If they choose to suffer unnecessarily that's personal choice. But Williams choice doesn't have to be my choice. I guess it's similar to the abortion divide. Some foetuses are never too old to be aborted.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Minestrone soup? Ramen!
September 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I wouldn't waste time worrying about Sentamu's opinion on anything. This is a muppet whose idea of 'practical action ' on world poverty was to sit in a fancy tent inside his cathedral praying about it in public.
On the other hand, the more time he and his fellow zombie merchants waste giving us the dubious delights of their 'wisdom', the louder the world will laugh and the better the arguments for C of E bishops to be sent packing from the House of Lords, etc.
September 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Ms Williams suggests that Lord Phillips should be disqualified because of his sympathy for terminally ill patients who wanted to end their own lives in assisted suicides.
I sincerely hope it would be difficult to find a panel of judges who had no sympathy for people faced with such a predicament.
September 24th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
You're being a little harsh on John Sentamu there, Stuart H. Don't forget that he ripped off his dog-collar and cut it in pieces publicly in protest at Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe. Evidently that action had Mugabe quaking in his shoes, and he hasn't been the same man since!
September 24th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
A panel of fundamentalist Christians, presumably!
September 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
John Sentamu said this: "Christians believe that their lives are given by God and that everyone has an important role to play in society. We do not believe that we own our individual lives and therefore we believe we should not choose to end them deliberately. I understand that others, especially those with terminal diseases, may take an alternative view, but I remain opposed to any move to legalise assisted suicide."
Why does he think, because Christians believe one thing, the law should not be changed? He can go on believing this if he wants. He doesn't, and no Christian is forced to ask for help in dying. They are permitted to die in as much agony as they please. But why should they visit this misery on others because of what they believe?
This whole business is really stupid. Of course, Lord Phillips has sympathy and compassion. He's not, presumably, a stone. What is surprising – well, perhaps not! – is that Christians – aren't they the loving compassionate ones?! – should be opposed to Lord Phillips' having sympathy for people in terrible, intolerable situations. The level of thought here is abysmally low. Darth Williams needs to go back to school.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Christians want to have their cake and eat it. You use rationality to point out religion's contradictions and absurdities, and this makes you cold and inhuman. Then you show compassion for people who are dying in considerable pain and want to hasten the inevitable, and you are biased and unfit to decide. Still, it's all academic. Nobody seriously thinks god-botherers are going to stop this, any more than they stopped IVF, Sunday trading, or a dozen other social changes that people actually wanted. Democracy, eh? Sometimes it happens.
September 25th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Pretty sick when so-called "moral" Christians believe it's better for people to suffer a long, agonizing death than to die with dignity through their own choice. Apparently their god really is a sadist, as I've long suspected.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Often ppeople say that one's first impression is usually the correct one.
Have a good long look into Mrs Williams eyes in photo at the top of this essay……it will tell you all you need to know about christian fundamentalism……"hate" …..is what I see.
September 25th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I have reason to be harsh with Sentamu, Barriejohn! After a 'consultation exercise' which, as far as I can tell, consisted of Sentamu chairing a private meeting and telling those 'consulted' who they were getting, my part of the world (Isle of Man) got his private chaplain as a bishop – a happy clappy clone of Sentamu himself who is using his unelected governmental status to drag us back to the bronze age.
As for collar cutting PR stunts – I bet if Gene Robinson did it to protest about Anglican homophobia he'd be defrocked under an obscure ecclesiastical law!
September 25th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Another "Bible Believer" who blithely ignores everything that the Good Book says about the role, appearance and demeanour of women in both church and society. How can you ignore it all? It's a mystery – but we've gone down that road umpteen times in recent weeks!
September 26th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Why does the subject come down to people outside the family, who have no interest in those dying. If they were I am sure they would fund a stay in Switzerland for the sufferer to get hep. Their god will not help me as he thinks I should go to hell anyway.
Take each case seperately. My body is my body.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
That's another very good point, Elaine123, and raises a question to which I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer. (Sorry for the delay in replying, but I was not notified of your comment at all, again. I wonder whether anyone will know that I have posted this!) Why do these religiots think that they have the right to get legislation passed by Parliament which will then make the rest of us, who do NOT subscribe to all the bullshit which they believe, subject to the moral code of THEIR religion? We are unbelievers, on our way to hell, with no interest in earning Brownie Points from their Heavenly Friend, so why should we be subject to all the strictures to which THEY are subject? As someone else has said on this post, no one is forcing them to either commit suicide or to assist anyone to do the same, so they can continue to act in the way that they believe to be right without fear of prosecution. But they still want to legislate for everyone else! It's a complete mystery to me!!
September 27th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Barriejohn, I got notice of your comment, so do not despair! I think I can answer your question. Most religions are power structures, and they seek greater power. That's why most religions exclude those from other religions, though, when atttacked by the non-religious, the religious tend to band together. They share a common allegiance to a belief which, implicitly, provides them with a undefeasible source of power. They speak for an all powerful one who commands. The all powerful one commands not only believers, but non-believers as well. They include non-believers in their calculations, because non-believers are those who deny this great unquestionable source of power, and they will suffer the consequences for this act of disobedience. So, in the religious lexicon commandments apply to everyone without exception, and the religious will make every effort to see that they are so applied. Take a look at any country in the world where catholicism is in the ascendent, and you will see laws that are fashioned in response to Vatican directives. Religions, at the present moment, are making a renewed claim to authority in the secular realm. This is why people like Darth Williams must be opposed strenuously. Because they won't stop there.
September 30th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Well put, Eric, but I didn't receive any notification of YOUR comment, and it is now 2 days old! I have to keep going back now to see whether any more replies have appeared, but I haven't got unlimited time, obviously. Perhaps I'm the only one with the problem!!