Sir, As a co-signatory to the amendment tabled by Lord Falconer of Thoroton to the Coroners and Justice Bill, I should be grateful for the opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding by my colleague Lord Mackay of Clashfern and others about the scope and the effect of the amendment (letter, June 29).

The Bill currently before the House of Lords modernises the language of the Suicide Act of 1961, but does not address the current failure of the law to distinguish between those who maliciously encourage suicide and those who compassionately assist the death of a terminally ill, mentally competent adult. Unless the Falconer amendment is passed, those who accompany a loved one abroad to die will still have to await the DPP’s decision when they come home as to whether they will face prosecution.

In this sensitive area, the law should reflect the widespread sense of compassion and humanity and provide legal certainty. It is not sufficient to rely on the way in which the DPP may decide what is in the public interest in any particular case. Citizens are entitled to know whether their conduct is or is not criminal. That is a fundamental principle of the rule of law.

The Falconer amendment provides a very narrow, carefully drawn defence. It clarifies what is the current actual position and is accompanied by strict safeguards — certification of two medical practitioners and an independent witness declaration from the terminally ill person. Those who assist someone who is not terminally ill to die abroad will not be protected by the amendment. Cases of abuse will be easier to identify.

As Lord Mackay and others point out, the State must not forget the duty to protect the life of citizens. By introducing safeguards to something that is already happening in a wholly unregulated way, that is what this amendment does.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC

House of Lords, London SW1

Explore Letters

• Feedback