Suicide law campaigner backs Daniel James's family

A terminally ill woman fighting a High Court battle over the UK's controversial assisted suicide laws yesterday defended the parents of a paralysed 23-year-old who helped him end his life and said the case highlights the urgent need for clarification in the law.

Debbie Purdy, 45, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, is expecting a High Court decision this week as to whether her husband can legally accompany her to Switzerland if she chooses to die. Daniel James went with his parents, Mark and Julie, to the Dignitas assisted suicide clinic last month after he lost the use of his body from the chest down in a rugby accident. This weekend it emerged that the police are investigating his parents' involvement.

Related articles

• Edward Turner: I accepted my mother's right to die, but Dan is different
• Search the news archive for more stories

Ms Purdy said: "My heart breaks for the James family. It's an awful thing and it makes me surer than ever that we've got to get clarity on the law. It's bad enough that anybody would have to bury their child, but now they're trying to grieve for him and are instead being probed by the police. It's unbearable.

"The judiciary and politicians should hang their heads in shame that something like this happens because they choose not to discuss the issue. If we have discussions, we can find a law that is right for our society and prevent painful experiences like theirs."

Julie James said yesterday that her paralysed son had found life unbearable. She added that she would like to meet the "well-meaning" woman associated with social services who reported the family to the police while they were away in Switzerland.

"This person had never met Dan before or after his accident and obviously gave no consideration for our younger daughters who had seen their big brother suffer so much, and the day before had to say goodbye to him. I hope that one day I will get the chance to speak to this lady and ask if she had a son, daughter, father, mother, who could not walk, had no hand function, was incontinent and relied upon 24-hour care for every basic need, and they had asked her for support, what would she have done," Mrs James wrote in an email to The Daily Telegraph.

Assisting in suicide is currently an offence punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment, but the law remains unclear over what exact circumstances would cause someone to be charged.

Lord Joffe, whose Bill to allow terminally ill patients to be assisted in death was blocked by the House of Lords two years ago, said yesterday it would be inhumane to prosecute the James family. "If parents love their child who is suffering terribly and are asked to accompany them, I don't know how they could refuse," he said.

"Going with them to the place where they end their life is humane and consistent with care and love. The last thing any parent wishes is for their child to die, and it would be inhumane for the parents to be prosecuted."

The case has also prompted politicians to call for an urgent review of the law on assisted suicide. Lord Joffe hopes to make another attempt at putting the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill through the Lords next year. "The sooner the law is changed the more humane and in tune with public opinion it will be."

Lord Joffe called on the Attorney General to act quickly on Debbie Purdy's case so that families would know if they were breaking the law when they accompanied relations seeking suicide abroad. "There are a hundred people at least who've gone to Zurich for assisted suicide, and in almost every case they have been accompanied by family," he said. "It's important for the future that family and friends who wish to help end their loved ones suffering know whether or not they are committing an offence."

Margot MacDonald, a Member of Scottish Parliament who suffers from Parkinson's disease and wants the option of assisted suicide available, said the law needs to be clarified urgently. "Our lawmakers are falling down on the job. This has to be tidied up legally so it takes into account the wishes of the majority to be able to choose. The interface of private morality and policy making is a difficult place to be, but it mustn't be avoided," she said.