On 29 November 2024, our MPs are due to debate and vote on the new Assisted Dying Bill. If passed, this bill will allow terminally ill adults to be given medical assistance to end their own life.
There will be strict requirements to protect vulnerable people, for example:
- they must be a resident of England and Wales, and be registered with a GP for at least 12 months;
- they must have the mental capacity to make their choice, and be deemed to have a clear, settled and informed wish, which is free from coercion or pressure;
- they must be expected to die within 6 months;
- they must made 2 separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die;
- 2 independent doctors must be satisfied that the person is eligible, with at least 7 days between their assessments;
- a High Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors and can question the dying person, or anyone else they consider appropriate; and
- whilst the doctor can prepare the medication, it must be the dying person who takes it.
It will also be illegal for someone to force, or coerce, a person to make the declaration that they want to end their own life.
How does this change things?
Currently, in England and Wales, under the Suicide Act 1961, it is an offence to encourage or assist in a suicide, or attempted suicide. Further, if a person unlawfully kills, or aids in the death of, a person, they cannot benefit from the deceased person’s estate, they have “forfeit” their right to benefit. A recent example of this reached the news when a husband drowned his wife. The husband in this scenario had forfeit his right to benefit from his wife’s £4.4m estate. This example is quite clear cut.
However, what would happen if someone wanted to take their own life due to a chronic illness, and their spouse assisted them in travelling to Switzerland? What would happen if you were a family member and travelled with them to say your goodbyes?
However, the court has the power to grant ‘relief from forfeiture’. This means that the court can make an order allowing a person to still benefit from a deceased’s person’s estate, despite them having assisted in their death, and therefore forfeit their right to it.
Sadly, the recent case of Morris v. Morris had to deal with just this situation. Myra Morris suffered with Multiple System Atrophy, which is a rare and degenerative neurological disorder, with no known cure. Her husband, Philip Morris assisted Myra in arranging her journey to the Pegasos clinic in
Switzerland as it was her intention to take her own life. Myra’s two adult children, and sister, accompanied Myra and Philip to the clinic.
In the time leading up to travelling to Switzerland, Myra made her Will and drafted a witness statement detailing her diagnosis, and her intention to commit suicide. Myra’s Will left money to her children and her sister. Her residuary estate was to be held on trust for Philip. Myra’s solicitor also drafted a witness statement which supported Myra’s statement. She detailed that she had assessed Myra’s mental capacity to make informed decisions to end her own life and was satisfied that Myra was not under any undue influence, pressure or encouragement.
Myra travelled to Switzerland by private plane and took a private car to the clinic. Philip completed all of the necessary paperwork and was with her when she died.
When returning to England, Philip went to the local police station to report Myra’s death and his involvement. The police did not take any further action against him, or anyone else in the family.
When talking to a solicitor to help assist Philip in the administration of Myra’s estate, he was informed that because of his involvement in her death, he had forfeit his right to benefit under her Will. Philip made an application to court for relief from forfeiture.
The judge reviewed the Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide which included considering Philip’s state of mind and whether there was any “moral culpability” in him assisting Myra. The judge also considered Myra’s assets and what Philip would have inherited. The judge considered that whilst Myra was wealthy, Philip was also independently financially comfortable and saw that no culpability was present in this case. Relief from forfeiture was granted to Philip.
Regarding Myra’s children and sister, the judge considered that whilst they accompanied Myra to the clinic, this did not mean that they were “assisting” her, and that as Myra would have attended the clinic with or without them, it was not seen that they were “encouraging” her either. As such, they did not commit the offence under the Suicide Act 1961, and so did not need any relief from forfeiture.
Summary
However, even if the Assisted Dying Bill passes into law, the courts may still have to deal with relief from forfeiture cases (for example when people do not fulfil the strict criteria). It is therefore important to ensure you obtain legal advice if you, or someone you know, may be involved in assisting someone with their death, or you are concerned that someone has been involved with the death of another.