Nice one, Mr Starmer

I think the Director of Public Prosecutions has done as good a job as one could have expected considering the impossible task he'd been given by the Law Lords. He's taken out all reference to the disabled and terminally ill - which means that the likes of me won't have less legal protection than anyone else. He's taken out reference to families, because it was naïve to ignore the fact that most abuse of young and old happens within families. He's emphasised that the law has not been changed and the mitigating factors should not be regarded as implying immunity from prosecution.

The DPP's press release summed them up:
'The six public interest factors against prosecution are:
• The victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
• The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion.
• The actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the crime, were of only minor encouragement or assistance.
• The suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide.
• The actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide.
• The suspect reported the victim's suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.'

Although the motive of compassion seems reasonable, it still seems to me rather subjective. It means more than feeling sorry for someone, or pitying, or worse not liking what you see. It means literally: 'suffering with'. I think that means sticking with someone who's suffering to the end. Compassion cannot mean killing.

Debbie Purdy was up-beat about the guidelines on the news today, but I suspect it was more rhetoric than real triumph. She was a bit ambiguous in the interview I saw. Although she said she and Omar will now be all right when/if she took herself to Zurich, she then adjusted 'will' to 'may', because actually the law hasn't changed and the DPP will still consider all cases. I think she tacitly acknowledges that by promising to carry on the campaign to get the law changed. The Euthanasia campaign will run and run, I'm sure. It's important that others stand and stand and stand against it. I was glad to hear that Gordon Brown had been brave enough to speak out in a clear and well informed opposition, and was very impressed by an article by Professor John Keown, author of 'Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy' (CUP) on why we shouldn't let it in by the back door ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7313579/Assisted-suicide-must-not-be-legalised-through-the-back-door.html ). Opinion polls and emotional (tear-jerking) stories - which go together - are no substitute for informed and humane discussion of the issues.

Debbie Purdy's appeal

Well, Debbie has won her appeal in the House of Lords. I've sent her an email saying well done. But, I must say, when I saw the outcome of her appeal, with its unanimous instruction to the Director of Public Prosecutions to clarify the grounds on which he would or would not prosecute someone like Omar accompanying Debbie to take her own life at the Zurich apartment known as ‘Dignitas’, I had mixed feelings. I was pleased for her, because she has put her life on hold trying to exorcise the fear of either going to die alone or risking Omar’s prosecution. And now, as she said, she can get on with her life. Yet at the same time, I was aware that it is part of a bigger campaign. Accompanying her in front of the cameras was a representative of Dignity in Dying. This is not merely about accompanying someone to commit suicide abroad, even though that is what the Law Lords’ ruling was about. It is about the whole issue of assisted suicide.

From his initial comments, it sounded as if Keir Starmer QC, the DPP, is intending to issue interim clarification for Debbie (and presumably similar cases) by September, and then to hold a public consultation in the autumn with a view to issuing a definitive document in the spring of next year. It seems to me that we should welcome that - and participate in the consultation. This is an occasion to do something. You know what they say about good men doing nothing.

The day after the night before

I listened to the end of the Lords' debate on the Falconer amendment last night (in fact I watched on line). In the event it was defeated by 194 to 141 - a bigger majority than when Lord Joffe's Bill was debated in 2006. To be honest, I heard the result with mixed emotions: mainly relief that a bad piece of legislation hasn't gone any further, but also sadness for Debbie Purdy who had great hopes personally that she could be free from concern for Omar, her husband, if she ever went to Zurich to die. From what Lord Falconer said in his summing up I think she can be free of that as it is: ' The current situation is that the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) has made it clear that he will not seek out these cases to investigate. If the cases come before him, he will ensure that they are properly investigated and, as long as he is satisfied that there is good motivation, he will not prosecute.' I hope she believes him, because I have no doubt about her good motivation, much as I regret where she feels it leads.

However, I trust that this is not the end of the discussion. Oddly enough, I think an article in Monday's Independent by Lord Lester, one of the amendment's supporters, might be a good place to start again. In it he said, 'Like many others, I believe that we need a legal framework which would allow doctors and nurses to be able lawfully to treat terminally ill patients to relieve their suffering as well as pain, even though it would be a virtual certainty that the treatment would shorten their lives.' To which I would say, 'I agree - depending on what you mean exactly.' For example, what do you mean by suffering? A large element in suffering can be fear - and a lot of fear associated with dying can be unnecessary on a purely physical level. Not all 'suffering' is negative. For example, unresolved conflicts can greatly disturb a terminally ill person - but the remedy for them is not premature death but positive resolution. The 'legal protection' we need is both for the carers and the cared for. It's there at the moment, imperfectly but effectively. Doctors fear litigation if in good faith they administer pain relief which has the effect of shortening life; patients fear being precipitated into death instead of receiving potential life-prolonging treatment. There's work to be done.

There's one other caution, I think, we need to make and that is, some things go beyond laws. I seem to remember that was a point Michael Sandel made in his last Reith lecture. You can tinker with laws till you're blue, or red, in the face; but unless we have a shared attitude in society, not just on issues, but about the sort of society we want, i.e. the underlying values we believe in, we are on to a loser. That's the real agenda.

Life and death

Today we've said goodbye to Anthony and Ruth Dunnett of International Health Partners UK (www.ihpuk.org/), who have spent the last three nights here while working in their warehouse near Banbury. As a charity they 'partner with companies from across Europe to provide donated medical aid to organisations serving children and adults in the most needy communities'. It means that victims of disasters and war as well as people who have no NHS and no money can have access to the best medicines. It's a major concern, handling £10 millions of medical supplies, and very efficient. Working with NGOs and government departments is complicated hard work - but they're good at it. Acting as a b and b for them has felt like being involved in saving lives in a small way. I should have mentioned that they are parents of our lovely daughter-in-law, Penny, and so we are joint grandparents. We sometimes call them the out-laws and have great fun when we both have days off together!

Meanwhile I'm working on a joint article with Debbie Purdy for 'The Independent on Sunday'. I was really touched to be asked to do it. I'm finding it surprisingly hard, because obviously we have very different views but I really like and respect her. I don't imagine we'll agree, but hopefully we'll inject a bit of first-hand experience into the discussion and maintain our mutual affection!

Last night the news of Michael Jackson's death broke. One of my friends wrote on Facebook something like: 'Hmmm! Last night the BBC interrupted Question Time to announce Michael Jackson's death. Well, I'm sorry he's died, but get a grip...'. I'm inclined to agree, and to wonder whether comparisons with Mozart and Beethoven this morning on Radio 4 weren't a bit OTT. I'm sure he was, as Al Sharpton said, 'a historic figure'; but so are we all. Whether we end up in history's roll of honour only time will tell. I suspect he may not rank with Mozart.... One gathers that he died of a cardiac arrest doing what he was good at and enjoyed - not a bad way to go, really.

Meeting Debbie Purdy

I think I'm experiencing a sort of post-traumatic stress! Don't you get flashbacks and relive the past? Yesterday we spent a sunny day in Regent's Park. The last time we'd been there was 37 years ago, when Jane and I went to see 'Twelfth Night' in the Open Air Theatre - a romantic tryst, as Gillian commented. This time it was rather different. We were there to meet Debbie Purdy and her husband Omar Puentes on camera, for the BBC. As I've said, it was for the Politics Show on Sunday morning, and the idea was to have us meeting up somewhere to discuss the issue of assisted suicide because it's meant to be debated as an amendment in the Lords next week. I felt that I was a lightweight compared to her, having appeared on TV a lot and honing her arguments in the process, which I've never done, and of course my voice being as it is felt like a handicap.

Anyway meeting her was a pleasant surprise. We were both in wheelchairs, hers electric, mine powered by Jane - which helped. We're both living with 'terminal illness', MS and MND. We both have incredible loving partners. But of course we differ in our views on assisted suicide. She wants the possibility; I don't. She wants someone who assists her (and those like us) to take our own lives to be immune from prosecution. I want that to remain a discretion but not a norm, in order to protect those who might be vulnerable to pressure or persuasion. The producer wanted to see if we could find any common ground.... I'll not spoil her programme by saying whether we did or not!

But at least we didn't come to fisticuffs, and we got on really well, I think. At least I really liked both her and Omar (who has a jazz CD coming out in the autumn, by the way). And we talked away almost non-stop on and off camera, and that's saying something in that we met 12 and parted at 4. I guess she wouldn't mind my saying she talked more than me, but that was mainly an effect of my speech difficulty. She's a really positive person. At one point we talked about faith. She said she didn't have my strong faith. I told her sometimes I hung on by a thread, and actually I didn't think 'religious' faith made pain and dying easier to experience. And I tried to say that everyone has a faith in something; everyone has presuppositions that underlie their opinions. So having a faith doesn't invalidate opinions. We also talked about the sort of society we'd like to see. When I talked about a compassionate one, Debbie questioned whether compassion meant allowing people suffer without a way out.

Anyway the producer, presenter and cameraman were endlessly patient, wanting to get the best out of us and I'm sure wanting to end up with an excellent finished product - which I have no doubt it will be. They had quite a bit to contend with: a curious pigeon, an inquisitive child, theatre noises, missing taxis, a temperamental camera, passing clouds, wind and so on. But they never seemed to lose their cool. They didn't disillusion my impression of Wednesday. Great professionals. For us the bonus was Regents Park itself: there was a beautiful bed of delphiniums and beds of massed roses, and the park itself, all on a beautiful mid-summery day. After a late lunch (4ish!) we were able to wander by ourselves beside the lake through the gardens to the east gate. And happily the journey home took an hour less than coming in, which was amazing for a Friday afternoon. I think we were on the only motorway (M40) which wasn't snarled up a bit or a lot.

It was a good day, all in all, but the only problem was that I spent quite a bit of the night reliving our conversations and thinking what I might have said better. I need to break the traumatic cycle! Fortunately I have a date to watch the Lions v South Africa rugby match with Peter at The Bay Tree this afternoon, which might do the trick.