The United Kingdom and Human Rights - College of Social ...

150 Values and Civil and Political Liberties
prohibits the subjection of persons to degrading treatment.
Contentious questions arise. Should extremely ill
persons be kept alive on life support equipment or alive
in great pain, which in some cases cannot be suppressed
by drugs? Should persons be kept alive in a state which
they consider undignified, say by tube feeding over long
periods when they would prefer their lives to end? Even
if the wedge principle argument against any state killing,
which begins philanthropically but can end in eugenic
murder, can be met by safeguards, an insuperable
problem remains. Many such ill persons are not capable
of making rational, uninfluenced choices because they
suffer deep feelings of guilt and of fear of imposing
upon their families. Euthanasia (whether involving help
with suicide or authorising action by persons of good
will) is better regulated by conscience than by a
permissive law. The present position, that assistance
with self-killing or a deliberate acceleration of death
constitute criminal offences, seems a safer way of
resolving such tragic conflicts, provided that there
continues to be sympathetic judicial exercise of discretion
to accept pleas of guilty to lesser offences and on
sentencing.
Looking after the family and ensuring the right to
respect for individuals' private and family life may
conflict with other public interests in relation to
immigration restrictions on bringing non-EEC workers'
families to the United Kingdom. The public interest is
that of the contributing taxpayer, who has to fund public
costs, whether of housing or of the alleged risk of
increased unemployment of other persons already resident
here. Of course, that interest needs to take into
account the fact that an immigrant head of household
will himself have been a contributing taxpayer.
There are yet other competing interests relating to the
home and to personal living. In the property law area