A recent case in West Sussex has brought the assisted suicide debate to the forefront of the public domain again, with demands for mercy and compassion from supporters and appeals for caution and protection from those opposed to a change in the law.

There has also been some criticism directed at the police for arresting the family members in the course of the investigation.

I am not able to discuss this case in detail but I can go on to discuss the police role and the challenging role expected of us.

From a personal perspective, I am a former cancer patient who considered how the worst case scenario could play-out, and I witnessed my great aunt, who had been a formidable and skilled professional, languish unhappily in a care home for years, after two large strokes.

MORE:

I did asmuch as I could to help her, and sometimes found myself begging doctors to keep this 87-year-old comfortable but to resist their ongoing mission to ‘cure’ her.

She could not communicate but everything I said was according to what was right for her – in my case, being a named beneficiary in her will was irrelevant.

Because her heart was strong she had several admissions to hospital like this and eventually passed away peacefully. This is the personal experience of just one police officer.

In terms of police duty, we are responsible for investigating crimes, and unexplained deaths on behalf of HM Coroner. There are two key considerations here: arrest, which removes the person’s right to leave whenever they wish to; and investigation, which is conducted to establish the most likely truth.

When you consider the obligations I mentioned, alongside one of the key police values of compassion, there is sometimes a dichotomy, and yet it still leaves police with little discretion.

Officers often have to perform tasks which are at odds with their personal beliefs, but this does support the objective application of the law.

There are things that they have to do, but how they go about them is a different matter – as you would expect there is likely to be a stark contrast between how a violent drunk is arrested, compared to a suspect in a sensitive case.

The public rightly expect us to do everything we can to protect vulnerable people – those who are not able to take care of themselves, or for many reasons are at risk from others.

Without a proper investigation, including interviews to get an account from all of those involved, there are considerable risks.

The emotional outcry demands that officers differentiate at the outset between merciful families and real criminals, considering whether arrest is appropriate.

If evidence isn’t secured and a post-mortem, often days later, reveals suspicious circumstances, it is too late.

There would then be the inevitable claim that police had failed in their duty to bring the offender/s to justice. The reality is that there are those out there who would seek the death of others in pursuit of their own interests.

The police function is to investigate, and report offenders, introducing them to the criminal justice system.

The CrownProsecution Service decides if there is likely to be successful conviction and if it would be in the public’s interest.

If the threshold is passed, a suspect goes to trial as an ‘offender’ who will not be convicted unless guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here

Readers who submit articles must agree to our terms of use. The content is the sole responsibility of the contributor and is unmoderated. But we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention. If you wish to complain about this article, contact us here