The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Guarding the gates of St Peter: life, death and law making

Guarding the gates of St Peter: life, death and law making
Guarding the gates of St Peter: life, death and law making
In 2009 the legislature, judges and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) each turned their attention to issues around assisted suicide. The legislature decided not to change the law. The judges decided the existing law was insufficiently clear and required the Director to clarify it. The Director flirted with reforming the law, but then drew back from such a legislative role. His published prosecution policy has been considered as a contribution to the regulation of death and dying, and as such has been found wanting. However, considered in the context of the proper roles of Parliament, courts and prosecutors, and seen as an exercise in constitutional restraint, the Director’s approach should be appraised rather differently. From this perspective, the decision of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in R (Purdy) v DPP1 raises significant concerns for the legitimacy of decision making in the contested moral issues that arise in healthcare ethics. In our democracy, courts should be wary of usurping legislative authority in areas where the Parliamentary position is clear. They should be reluctant to take sides in the protracted war over access to a ‘good death’
0261-3875
644-666
Montgomery, Jonathan
c4189a2c-86b8-466a-a7c8-985757206c04
Montgomery, Jonathan
c4189a2c-86b8-466a-a7c8-985757206c04

Montgomery, Jonathan (2011) Guarding the gates of St Peter: life, death and law making. Legal Studies, 31 (4), 644-666. (doi:10.1111/j.1748-121X.2011.00205.x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In 2009 the legislature, judges and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) each turned their attention to issues around assisted suicide. The legislature decided not to change the law. The judges decided the existing law was insufficiently clear and required the Director to clarify it. The Director flirted with reforming the law, but then drew back from such a legislative role. His published prosecution policy has been considered as a contribution to the regulation of death and dying, and as such has been found wanting. However, considered in the context of the proper roles of Parliament, courts and prosecutors, and seen as an exercise in constitutional restraint, the Director’s approach should be appraised rather differently. From this perspective, the decision of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in R (Purdy) v DPP1 raises significant concerns for the legitimacy of decision making in the contested moral issues that arise in healthcare ethics. In our democracy, courts should be wary of usurping legislative authority in areas where the Parliamentary position is clear. They should be reluctant to take sides in the protracted war over access to a ‘good death’

Text
Guarding_Gates_St_Peter_online_version.pdf - Version of Record
Restricted to Registered users only
Download (124kB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 14 September 2011
Published date: December 2011
Organisations: Southampton Law School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 204683
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/204683
ISSN: 0261-3875
PURE UUID: ceb7e661-f798-4945-8542-552a9b0273d6

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 Dec 2011 13:29
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 04:32

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Jonathan Montgomery

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×