healthmedicinet

“It was the right thing for her and, in the end, she had the strength for all
three of us to go through with it.

“Not once did she have second thoughts.”

After months of coping with his grief, Mr Squires, Mrs Porter’s elder son, is
now helping to campaign for a change in the law to allow people such as his
mother to seek the assistance of others in ending what they regard as a life
no longer bearable.

This week Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, will table a Private
Member’s Bill in the Lords which, if passed when it reaches the Commons
later this year, would make “assisted dying” legal in Britain.

He says the law needs to “catch up” with public attitudes.

The Bill would allow a terminally ill person, certified by two doctors as
having less than six months to live, to seek the help of a friend or
relation to end their life.

Peers rejected calls for legalisation in 2006 and 2009, while doctors’ groups
and the Church of England remain opposed.

Today, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC warns in The Telegraph that the plans
would not “pass the public safety test” and that the term “assisted suicide”
is “Orwellian spin”.

In addition to the Bill, two cases will represent a fresh push to legalise
assisted suicide through the courts.

The first is a joint challenge led by Jane Nicklinson, the widow of Tony
Nicklinson, the “locked-in syndrome” sufferer who died last year, and Paul
Lamb, a severely disabled former lorry driver.

The second case is being brought by another “locked-in syndrome” sufferer
named only as “Martin”.

He is fighting to widen the Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidelines –
which allow close family members to help someone to travel abroad to end
their lives – to include strangers.

For Mr Squires, having lived through his mother’s death, it is a simple matter
of personal choice.

“It is not about allowing assisted suicide. It’s about allowing people who are
already dying because of a terminal illness to choose to hasten their death
in a dignified way,” he said.

He and other supporters of the Dignity in Dying campaign claim the religious
opponents of their views are out of step with public opinion. In answer to
them, he says: “We should apply our beliefs only to ourselves.

“Why should your beliefs impose a painful death on me?”

It was his mother’s experience that led Mr Squires to embrace the campaign.

Having inherited Huntingdon’s disease, Mrs Porter knew what was in store for
her when symptoms began to show when she was in her early 50s.

She gradually started to lose control of her movements, and soon required a
wheelchair or the support of another person to move around. The disease was
robbing her of what she loved: hillwalking, driving and visiting other
countries.

“She was a determined, adventurous woman. But she concluded she didn’t want to
go through the later stages of the condition because of what she had
witnessed in others,” said Mr Squires.

The final blow came when she lost Bill, her beloved second husband, to cancer
in 2010. He had been her principal carer, and life suddenly became much
tougher.

Mrs Porter, who had built a career in retailing jewellery, becoming a shop
manager, talked to her family about ending her life at Dignitas.

Mr Squires recalls the painful discussions over the following months. “My
mother was determined not to go into a care home. She didn’t want to lose
her independence. But her quality of life was going. She couldn’t go for
walks, she couldn’t drive, she couldn’t travel and she knew what she was in
for as the disease began to get more and more aggressive,” he said.

Indeed, such was her determination that Mrs Porter took an overdose of pills
in a suicide attempt, and spent six months in hospital near her home in
Southport, Merseyside. She was discharged only when doctors were convinced
she no longer presented a threat to herself.

“She had known about Dignitas for several years and she saw it as her safety
net,” said Mr Squires. “When it came to the point where she knew she was
ready, she asked for me and my brother’s support. We tried to persuade her
to look at other options, but she was adamant and so we made it our aim to
support her going out there.

“It’s not an easy thing to do, practically or emotionally, arranging for your
mother’s death,” he said.

“Dignitas requires a medical certificate and a doctor’s letter stating the
patient is terminally ill.”

The application process took nearly six months. “By this point, she needed
help in moving even the smallest distance.

“We spent the final week with her in Zurich, and that was particularly
traumatic, knowing that on the Friday she was going to die. It was
horrendous, but she never wavered in her determination.”

In the end, says Mr Squires, death came remarkably peacefully.

“The people at Dignitas were incredible. They were skilled and supportive,
knowing when to step forward and when to step back and give you space.”

Having scattered his mother’s ashes in the Lake District — joining those of
her husband — Mr Squires suddenly realised he and his brother had put
themselves at risk of criminal prosecution.

They took comfort from the fact that in 2010 Keir Starmer, the Director of
Public Prosecutions, issued guidelines stating that a decision to prosecute
must be in the public interest and must take account of the suspect’s
motivation.

“I started to research the subject,” said Mr Squires. “And I came to the
conclusion the criminal law as it stands is cruel and morally unjustifiable.

“There’s a compelling moral argument in favour of changing the law to prevent
unnecessary suffering by allowing free personal choice for the terminally
ill.”

Mr Squires maintains that the requirement to have two doctors certify someone
as terminally ill while still of sound mind would safeguard patients against
unscrupulous relations seeking to hasten the death. It would also allow the
authorities to intervene before a death, rather than investigating after the
fact, as happens now.

Mrs Porter’s sons say that because of British law, she sought death earlier
than she would have needed to if enlisting their help at a later stage had
been legal.

“Mum chose to go to Switzerland because she wanted to retain control rather
than deteriorate to the point where she couldn’t do anything about it.

“Her two children, her three grandchildren, her sister and her brother, we all
lost precious time with her because British law placed so many obstacles in
her way.

“That’s why I want choice to be made available in this country.”