Constitutional law professor Richard H. S. Tur of Oxford College is speaking out about English and American laws on assisted suicide. Tur spoke Tuesday at the SMU Underwood Law Library to a gathering of approximately 75 students.

“A person has as much right to die with dignity as they do to live,” Tur said. “The question is why a rational person would choose to die.”

He feels that the laws that govern this sensitive issue have been too restrictive to those who are physically disabled. He said that the courts tend to fear that things would get out of control and people not capable of making a rational decision would have their lives taken en mass.

“It cannot be right that my constitutional right or legal freedom to make my own decisions about personal and intimate matters can be so easily lost to this complex argument,” Tur said. “I tend to have more faith in human beings than that.”

Tur said that ordinarily the Supreme Court recognizes an individual’s right to make decisions about intimate matters without government involvement. The Supreme Court ruled that an individual is entitled to make decisions “involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy” – except in the case of death.

Tur calls these decisions “life decisions” because they are decisions for or about a life. These types of decisions include religious commitment, political allegiance, moral conviction, career choice, military service, marriage, procreation and death.

“In a free society, individuals should be able to make such momentous life decisions for themselves, and that is certainly the constitutional orthodoxy of your country,” Tur said. “However, the position adopted by the courts in your country and mine is that even totally competent individuals who are in severe physical pain…may not choose death by means of assistance. Yet in some cases the assistance of others is a necessary condition of realizing the rational and freely chosen objective.”

The normally jovial Scotsman told the grim story of Diane Pretty and her husband, Brian, of England. Pretty, a 42-year old housewife, suffers from a motor neurone disease that robs her of the ability to move her muscles – including, eventually, those controlling speech and breathing. Her condition has noticeably deteriorated during the years she has fought the courts for her human rights.

Pretty is suffering and wishes to end her life, but her disability prevents her from taking her own life. She wants her husband to assist her, but Brian would face a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison for doing so.

She lost her legal battles with the courts in England and the International Court of Human Rights.

“The Prettys hold the law in fidelity and have been made to pay the ultimate price,” Tur said. “Another man suffocated his 22-year old daughter to death. She was mentally ill and caused disruptions in the household. The court gave the man the minimum penalty and released him. The belief of the judges was that the daughter probably would not have had a normal life anyway. Meanwhile Brian would face prison for eliminating his wife’s suffering.”

Tur said that he would like to see both American and English laws amended to specifically state under what conditions assisted suicide would be acceptable. Tur thinks the first requirement should be that the person wishing to die must be capable of rational thought. The second and last requirement should be that the person is physically impaired so that they could not perform the act themselves. Tur admits that laws are not perfect.

“For every law, we see the exceptions to the rule that we had not considered,” Tur said. “Unfortunately hard cases make bad laws.”

Law student Erwin Caban said he found the lecture interesting and informative.

“I think that it is very beneficial to hear both sides of the law,” Caban said. “We get wrapped up in this issue and look at our own laws and don’t really think about the fact that other people are dealing with this as well.”

SMU Dean of Law John Attanasio was the first graduate student that Tur taught at Oxford in England. Attanasio questioned Tur on the difference between American and English laws regarding malpractice by a physician.

Tur responded by explaining the vast difference between medical liability law in England and in America.

“[In America] the laws are based on intent,” he said. “In England the laws are based on cause.”

In England, even if a doctor is responsible for a patient’s death he is not held responsible. He has four major defenses, any one of which the law accepts. The key to the doctor’s defense is “probable cause.” Tur explained that if man A stabs man B and man B dies due to improper care, the law says that man B died from the stab wound and not improper care.

One student at the lecture asked if the public healthcare system in England protected the doctors from penalization. Tur said the hospice care is more likely to guarantee medical care for the dying than in America, but no more benefits.

“We live with fantasies of fairness about the law,” Tur said. “We live with these laws because we do not care for the alternative.”