Assisted Suicide Prosecutions
1. General Legal Framework
“Assisting suicide” refers to intentionally helping another person end their own life—typically by providing information, means (e.g., pills), or physical assistance.
Most legal systems distinguish:
Suicide – not a crime (in most modern jurisdictions).
Assisting suicide – can still be a criminal offense, due to concerns about coercion, abuse, and protecting vulnerable individuals.
Penalties vary widely:
Some jurisdictions treat it as a serious felony (punishable up to 15–25 years).
Others allow medical assistance in dying under strict regulation.
Prosecutions often turn on:
The degree of assistance (mere encouragement vs. active participation)
The victim’s autonomy and intent
Whether the defendant is a medical professional, caregiver, or family member
Statutory exceptions (as in Canada and parts of the U.S.)
Moral or public‑interest considerations (especially in the U.K., where prosecutors apply a public‑interest test)
Key Cases (Detailed)
Below are more than five cases, divided by jurisdiction, each with a detailed explanation of legal findings and relevance.
A. UNITED STATES
1. Washington v. Glucksberg (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997)
Facts: Physicians challenged Washington State’s ban on assisted suicide, arguing it violated the Due Process Clause by denying terminally ill patients control over the timing of their death.
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the ban. The Court held that “assisted suicide” is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Constitution. States therefore may criminalize assistance in suicide.
Importance:
This case established that states can legally prohibit assisted suicide and prosecute those who aid it. It created the constitutional basis for states’ differing approaches—some legalizing medically assisted dying, others enforcing bans.
2. Vacco v. Quill (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997)
Facts: Challenged New York’s assisted-suicide law, asserting unequal treatment between:
Refusing life‑sustaining treatment (permitted), and
Physician‑assisted suicide (criminalized).
Holding:
The Court said the two acts are legally distinct. Refusing treatment allows natural death; assisting suicide intentionally causes death. The Equal Protection Clause was not violated.
Importance:
Confirmed the legality of prosecuting assisted suicide even while honoring the right to refuse treatment.
3. People v. Kevorkian (Michigan Supreme Court, 1994)
Facts: Dr. Jack Kevorkian (“Dr. Death”) assisted multiple terminally ill patients in suicide. Earlier charges had been difficult to prove because Michigan lacked a specific statute. This case concerned his assistance in three patient deaths.
Holding:
The court held that active participation in death (e.g., operating a machine that administers lethal drugs) qualifies as murder under Michigan law. Kevorkian was eventually convicted of second‑degree murder in 1999 for directly administering a lethal injection.
Importance:
Set a precedent that moving beyond indirect assistance can escalate charges from “assisting suicide” to homicide.
4. People v. Stuard (New York, 1989)
Facts: Defendant provided his depressed girlfriend with information, advice, and physical help to commit suicide.
Holding:
He was convicted of second-degree manslaughter because the court found his assistance was a substantial factor in the death.
Importance:
Illustrates how verbal encouragement and assistance—without directly causing death—can still lead to serious criminal liability.
B. UNITED KINGDOM
5. R (on the application of Purdy) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (UK House of Lords, 2009)
Facts: Debbie Purdy, suffering from progressive illness, sought assurance her husband would not be prosecuted if he accompanied her to Switzerland for an assisted death.
Holding:
The court ordered the DPP to publish clear prosecutorial guidelines.
It did not legalize assisted suicide, but required transparency when deciding whether to prosecute family members who help.
Importance:
Created the UK’s current public‑interest test. Prosecutions often hinge on:
Victim’s voluntary, informed decision
Suspect’s compassion vs financial motive
Degree of assistance
6. R v. Cox (Crown Court, Winchester, 1992)
Facts: Dr. Nigel Cox injected a terminally ill patient with a lethal dose of potassium chloride.
Holding:
He was convicted of attempted murder, receiving a suspended sentence. Even compassionate intent could not justify intentionally causing death.
Importance:
Shows that when a doctor directly causes death, charges escalate from “assisted suicide” to murder, regardless of motive.
C. CANADA
7. Carter v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada, 2015)
Facts: Individuals with degenerative illnesses challenged the ban on physician-assisted dying.
Holding:
The blanket criminal prohibition violated Section 7 (life, liberty, security of person) of the Charter.
Court legalized Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) under strict guidelines.
Importance:
Shifted Canada from criminal prohibition to regulation.
However, assisting suicide outside MAID remains criminal, and prosecutions continue when procedures aren’t followed.
8. Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada, 1993)
Facts: Sue Rodriguez, suffering from ALS, sought permission for physician-assisted death.
Holding:
The Court upheld the ban at the time. (Later overturned by Carter.)
Importance:
Demonstrates the evolution of Canadian law from strict criminalization to regulated permissibility.
D. EUROPE / ECHR
9. Pretty v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 2002)
Facts: Diane Pretty, suffering from a terminal condition, argued that the UK’s refusal to allow her husband to assist her suicide violated Articles 2, 3, 8, 9, and 14 of the ECHR.
Holding:
The Court said:
No right to assisted suicide under Article 2
No violation of human-rights protections
States may criminalize assistance to protect vulnerable persons
Importance:
Affirms broad state discretion to prosecute assisted suicide in Europe.
10. Gross v. Switzerland (ECHR, 2014)
Facts: A non‑terminal elderly woman wanted a clear legal pathway to assisted death and argued Swiss law lacked certainty.
Holding:
Initially the court ruled Switzerland needed clearer rules, but the judgment was later annulled for procedural reasons.
Importance:
Shows tension in Europe between personal autonomy and state regulation.
E. ADDITIONAL NOTABLE PROSECUTION CASES
11. State v. Forbush (Wisconsin, 2002)
A man who helped his depressed friend obtain the means for suicide was convicted of assisting suicide despite arguing the friend made an independent decision.
Importance: Encouragement + facilitating means = criminal liability even when victim acts alone.
12. State v. Melchert-Dinkel (Minnesota, 2014)
An ex‑nurse encouraged people online to kill themselves, posing as a compassionate peer.
Held: “Speech that intentionally advises, encourages, or assists suicide” can be criminally punished.
Importance: Shows internet‑based assistance still triggers prosecution.
SUMMARY OF KEY PRINCIPLES FROM THESE CASES
Direct causation ≠ assistance
If the helper physically administers the lethal act (Cox, Kevorkian), charges escalate to murder.
Assistance includes non‑physical acts
Providing encouragement, instructions, or equipment can be enough (Stuard, Melchert‑Dinkel).
Motivation matters (U.K.)
In the U.K., prosecutors weigh compassion vs. exploitation (derived from Purdy).
Regulated medical assistance is different
Some jurisdictions (several U.S. states, Canada) allow physician‑assisted dying but still prosecute unregulated acts (Carter).
No universal right to assisted suicide
Courts repeatedly hold that there is no absolute constitutional/human-rights right (Glucksberg, Vacco, Pretty).
RELATED Blog
comments