R (Nicklinson) v MoJ [2014] - Assisted Dying

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Harriet, a 67-year-old woman with advanced multiple sclerosis, is physically unable to end her own life without assistance. She claims that the UK's blanket prohibition on assisted suicide violates her right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She also argues that the law disproportionately affects severely disabled individuals, contravening Article 14's prohibition on discrimination. The High Court rejects both arguments, but Harriet appeals to the Supreme Court, invoking relevant precedents in assisted dying cases. During the appeal, extensive debate arises about how much deference should be given to Parliament in deciding end-of-life laws.


Which of the following best reflects the Supreme Court’s reasoning regarding the ECHR and assisted dying in such cases?

Introduction

Assisted dying, including actions such as doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, involves complex legal and moral questions. The 2014 UK Supreme Court case R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice examined these issues directly. The court reviewed whether the UK’s ban on assisted suicide aligned with Articles 8 (right to private and family life) and 14 (non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It also looked at how much parliament should decide rules on this matter. The decision remains key for discussions about laws on assisted dying.

The Facts of the Case and Initial Decisions

Tony Nicklinson, paralyzed after a stroke, asked the court to confirm that a doctor could lawfully help him end his life. Another person, Martin (‘M’), who had locked-in syndrome, wanted clear guidance on whether his spouse could assist him in traveling abroad for assisted dying without legal risks. The High Court rejected both claims. The Supreme Court later reviewed Nicklinson’s request (though he had died by then) and Martin’s legal questions.

Article 8 ECHR and the Right to Private Life

The claimants argued that the total ban on assisted suicide violated their Article 8 right to make personal choices about their death. The court agreed that Article 8 could relate to end-of-life decisions, referencing Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1. However, it stressed that states have broad authority to protect life, especially for vulnerable individuals. The court upheld Pretty’s conclusion that Article 8 does not create a right to assisted suicide.

Article 14 ECHR and Non-Discrimination

The claimants also argued that the law discriminated under Article 14, as it treated those physically unable to end their own lives differently from those who could act alone. The court evaluated whether the distinction served a valid purpose and was reasonable. It accepted that protecting vulnerable people from pressure and upholding life were legitimate goals. The court ruled the ban, while creating different treatment, did not amount to unfair discrimination given the challenges in regulating assisted dying.

Parliament’s Role and State Authority

A key issue in Nicklinson was how courts and parliament should share responsibility in socially contentious areas. The court recognized its power to declare laws incompatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, it stressed parliament’s primary role in making laws, noting the ECHR allows states flexibility on assisted dying. The court pointed to ongoing debates in parliament and society, stating elected lawmakers should decide the legal approach. It referenced the Suicide Act 1961, which decriminalized suicide but kept assisting suicide illegal.

Dissenting Opinions

While the majority upheld the existing law, some judges disagreed strongly. Lady Hale and Lord Kerr argued the court should have declared the law incompatible with human rights, emphasizing individual choice and the severe suffering of people like Nicklinson and Martin. They believed the current rules unfairly limited the Article 8 rights of those unable to act without assistance. These disagreements showed differing judicial opinions on this sensitive topic.

The Impact and Significance of Nicklinson

R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice remains a major UK case on assisted dying. It confirmed no right to assisted suicide exists under Article 8 ECHR and supported states’ broad discretion in this area. The decision highlighted parliament’s duty in shaping laws, noting ongoing discussions. The case is often referenced in legal and ethical debates about end-of-life choices, balancing personal freedom with protecting vulnerable groups. Later cases, like Conway [2018] EWCA Civ 1431, continue to address these issues, showing the lasting legal and social challenges around assisted dying.

Conclusion

The Nicklinson ruling provides a thorough analysis of legal and ethical issues in assisted dying. It clarifies how Articles 8 and 14 ECHR apply, acknowledging personal freedom while supporting the state’s role in safeguarding life. The case shows the tension between judicial review and parliamentary authority in morally charged areas. The Supreme Court’s decision, including dissents, offers key points for debates on assisted dying. Ongoing legal cases, such as Conway, demonstrate the lasting relevance of the questions raised in Nicklinson for law and policy.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal