The Case of Louise Shackleton and the Future of Assisted Dying Laws
A 10 month-long police investigation saw Louise Shackleton avoid prosecution for her role in assisting the suicide of her husband (Anthony, who had lived with motor neurone disease since 2018.) This investigation robbed Mrs Shackleton of the chance to access her husband’s devices, including his tablet where he had left a letter for her prior to his death. Mrs Shackleton noted that the letter “would have been a much bigger comfort 10 months ago”, but the events of the investigation meant that reading the letter left her “re-traumatised” rather than comforted.
The investigation launched against Mrs Shackleton can be linked to the Suicide Act 1961, as Section 2 notes that someone is criminally liable for complicity in another’s suicide if they carried out an act that assisted the suicide of another individual. Had Mrs Shackleton been prosecuted and found guilty of such an offence, she could have faced a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Shackleton viewed her story as an opportunity to raise awareness for assisted dying and the need for legal reform, with reform potentially on the horizon (in the form of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill. The bill is currently in the committee stage in the House of Lords and would allow for people to end their life on their terms (provided they meet certain conditions.) Support for the bill can be seen in MPs and the public alike, as 330 MPs voted for the bill in a free vote on 29th November 2024. Public support for the bill was made evident through a July 2023 IPSOS survey, where 2/3 of Britons said they supported assisted dying. While these figures clearly indicate support for assisted dying (and sympathy for people like Mrs Shackleton), support from the House of Lords seems to be harder to generate.
Some may cite the availability of the peers in the House of Lords for the delay of the bill’s passage. During the previous parliament (2019-24), peers attended 46% of the days they were eligible to attend. The inability for peers to sit in the House of Lords will directly influence how quickly the bill can pass through both houses. Thus, the delay of the bill is an institutional issue and is not tied to the beliefs of the peers. However, factoring in the demographic of the House of Lords also provides another view of why the bill’s passage has been delayed. The average age of the House of Lords is 71.Due to this, the stance of the average peer in the House of Lords to assisted dying (and importantly the sanctity of life) would be more likely to be a conservative view. The delay of the bill, as a result, can be explained as an ideological pushback by the House of Lords.
The conservative view of assisted dying that a number of peers may hold was explained by Peter Singer and Mark Siegler. They noted that those opposed to euthanasia value the idea of medicine as a “healing profession.” To allow people to end their life, whether by active or passive euthanasia, goes against the moral foundation of medicine (e.g. the Hippocratic Oath.) It is very likely that peers in the House of Lords were involved with the passing of the 1961 Suicide Act (there are currently 189 peers between the age of 80-99), these peers may still support the rhetoric of the act and the concept of medicine being a “healing profession.” On the other hand, a more liberal view on assisted dying (reflected by public opinion and the November 2024 vote by MPs) was explored by Helga Kuhse. Kuhse asserted that the duty of doctors is to “seek our good” and that it can be morally better to carry out euthanasia if it allows for the good of the patient/family to prevail. In this context, medicine can be a healing profession through the act of euthanasia. A person who has suffered due to a disease (like Anthony Shackleton) can be relieved of pain, allowing for the family to heal and not watch a loved one suffer. Kuhse’s view, however, may not resonate to the older peers in the House of Lords (as they may view assisted suicide as an act that leads to grief for those left behind, which invalidates the idea that euthanasia can allow for people to heal.)
Louise Shackleton’s case demonstrates the ever-present clash between autonomy and moral responsibility within the law. While recent actions by MPs and surveys indicate support for people like Mrs Shackleton, the nature of the House of Lords (and their stance on the sanctity of life) may act as a barrier to legal reform on assisted dying. By bringing in Singer, Siegler and Kuhse’s arguments, one can clearly see that the future of assisted dying is rosier compared to previous decades (but is still not clear.)
By Nifemi Femi-Sanni
