Pressure is growing in Europe for some form of legalised euthanasia but few governments have gone as far as the Benelux countries in allowing assisted suicide in clearly defined cases. The mix of growing public support for ending lives of the terminally ill or brain dead but continued prohibitions on it in the law has led to some long and hard-fought legal battles in Italy (Eluana Englaro) and in France (Vincent Humbert).

(Photo: Multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, whose case prompted Britain's new guidelines, 2 June 2009/Stephen Hird)

It has also created a legal and ethical twilight zone where for compassionate reasons the law did not really punish the doctors, nurses or relatives who helped someone die. In France, this became clear in a number of court cases where the person accused of assisted suicide were convicted but got only a short suspended sentence. In Britain, a frequently used way to get around the law has been the so-called "suicide tourism" route to the Dignitas suicide group in Zurich.

Pressed by the Law Lords to clarify British policy, the Director of Public Prosecutions in London has issued guidelines indicating when someone who helps another person to commit suicide might face legal action. At first glace, this may seem like a clarification. But it still leaves enough questions out there to leave the issue shrouded in uncertainty. The reception in London has been mixed. Some commentators say this strikes a sensible balance but others think it's not enough and parliament has to debate and legislate on it.

The guidelines are listed below and here is our news report explaining the story.

Do you think governments such as Britain's should take a clear decision to keep the euthanasia ban or scrap it? Or do you think they should leave some leeway, as in the case of these guidelines, to let families make the final decision for relatives who suffer from  terminal illnesses or want to end their lives because of severe and incurable physical disabilities?

(Photo: Undertakers remove body of assisted suicide from Dignitas office in Zurich, 20 Jan 2003/Sebastian Derungs)

Among factors weighing against a prosecution are:

• The victim expressed a clear wish to commit suicide
• The victim asked for assistance in killing themselves
• The victim had a terminal illness or a severe and incurable physical disability; or a severe degenerative physical condition
• Those assisting were wholly motivated by compassion
• The victim was physically unable to undertake the act that constituted assistance
• The act of assistance or influence was judged to be relatively minor

Among factors weighing in favour of prosecution:

• The suicide victim was under 18 years old
• The victim's capacity to make an informed decision on suicide was affected by illness or learning difficulties
• The victim did not have a terminal illness, nor a severe and incurable physical disability nor a severe degenerative physical condition
• The victim had not unequivocally indicated a wish to kill themselves
• The victim had not personally asked for assistance

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

Professions such as law, medicine and journalism have a “closed shop mentality” and are increasingly open only to those from affluent backgrounds, a report into social mobility says.

Former Labour government minister Alan Milburn, who chaired the study on widening access to top professions, said that young people need better career advice to raise their aspirations and give them greater confidence. Mr Milburn told the BBC: “We have raised the glass ceiling but I don’t think we have broken through it yet.

“What we have got to do is open up these opportunities so they are available for everybody.”

The Fair Access to the Professions report also recommended that universities take into account the social background of their intake, criticised internships and work placements as acting as an easy way in for affluent and well-connected young people and called for increased monitoring of the background of those entering certain professions.

What do you think? Are these measures likely to increase social mobility? Is it right to look at a person’s background when considering them for a university place or professional position?

The Law Lords have ruled against the government over the sensitive issue of whether people accused of a crime should have the right to hear the evidence against them.

Three terrorism suspects had claimed it was against their rights to be subject to control orders — which effectively impose a form of house arrest on them – on the basis of secret evidence they have been unable to challenge or even hear.

The government says control orders are a means of limiting the risk it believes are posed by suspects it can neither prosecute not deport.    

Rights groups say Britain is riding roughshod over one of its most cherished legal principles by not allowing defendants to hear the evidence against them.

One of the Law Lords, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the senior Law Lord on the case, said: “A trial procedure can never be considered fair if a party to it is kept in ignorance of the case against him.

“If the wider public are to have confidence in the justice system, they need to be able to see that justice is done rather than being asked to take it on trust.

Do you agree? Or are the stakes post 9/11 just too high to cling to what some may consider antiquated notions of fair play and justice?

Former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt is calling for a change in the law, to allow people to take terminally ill patients abroad for assisted suicide without fear of prosecution.

The law may say it is illegal but in practice, those who do assist suicide abroad are not being prosecuted in practice.

The anomaly has been highlighted lately by the case of multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, who lost a legal bid to force the government to clarify the law on assisted suicide to protect her husband from any future action.

Opponents of any change in the law, like Care not Killing say it would open the floodgates and soon lead to a more general euthanasia law. How long would it be before old and terminally ill people might find themselves being encouraged or even forced to take their own lives?

Hewitt’s bid to change the law is not likely to be successful, despite cross-party support in the House of Commons. Do you think she is right?

A new pilot scheme which allows worried parents ask police if someone with significant access to their children is a convicted sex offender has been launched by the government.

The Home Office says it will make it possible for single mothers, for example,  to find out the background of a new boyfriend, or for worried parents to check out babysitters.

The measures do not go as far as ”Megan’s Law” in the United States that allows local communities to find out about convicted paedophiles living in their area, but Sara Payne, whose daughter Sarah was murdered by a predatory paedophile in 2000, has campaigned for such a law in Britain and said the new pilot scheme was a welcome start.  

However, probation officers and charities have warned that the disclosure could force some offenders to hide from police checks. They also voice concern that the scheme could simply be ineffective because parents would be unlikely to check on their partners while pointing out paedophiles carefully groom victims over long periods of time.

Is the scheme a good idea, or does it go too far or not far enough? Send us your comments.

The government has decided to tighten the law on cannabis, reinstating it to a Class B drug, because of fears over the high-strength skunk variety now prevalent on the streets.

Cannabis was downgraded to Class C — which includes substances such as anabolic steroids — in 2004. That meant possession of the drug was treated largely as a non-arrestable offence. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended it should stay as Class C.

Since 2004 there has been much debate on the dangers of repeated use of cannabis, the likelihood of its fostering psychotic behaviour and its role as a possible “gateway” to more dangerous drugs. 

Do you believe Gordon Brown is right in putting cannabis back in Class B? 

Paul McCartney has been ordered to pay his estranged wife Heather Mills 24.3 million pounds after their public and highly acrimonious divorce settlement.

She said: “we are very, very pleased.” The ex-Beatle declined to comment.

High Court judge Mr Justice Bennett made his ruling at the end of the couple’s four-year marriage, a union that produced a daughter, Beatrice. It is one of the biggest divorce settlements in Britain, but not THE biggest.

Do you think it is fair?