Nicklinson
A landmark case which raised similar issues is the case of Nicklinson, which was heard by the UK Supreme Court (R (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38). Mr Nicklinson suffered a stroke in June 2005 which caused ‘locked-in’ syndrome (complete paralysis but his mind was working perfectly). His condition was not life threatening and he had a reasonable expectation of living for years afterwards. In 2007, he decided to end his own life, but he would only have been able to do so by refusing all food and liquids. He wanted a doctor to end his life, but could not request that assistance while the doctor was likely to face a charge of murder or assisted suicide. Having failed to persuade the courts in various legal actions, Mr Nicklinson died of pneumonia in August 2012 after refusing nutrition, fluids and medical treatment. His wife continued the case and was joined by Mr Lamb (a man paralysed in an accident). Another case heard at the same time was that of AM (also referred to as ‘Martin’), who was unable to speak and virtually unable to move. He found his life intolerable and had made up his mind that he wanted to die. Because of his disability, he was unable to do so without assistance and was wholly reliant on his professional carers. Martin argued that:

the ‘Policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of encouraging or assisting suicide’ was an unjustified interference with his Article 8 right under the ECHR, because the consequences of the policy for the people whose assistance Martin sought were insufficiently certain; and
the policy disproportionately interfered with his Article 8 right, because it discouraged the assistance Martin sought.
The DPP argued that the policy is sufficiently clear and that it is not possible to guarantee that certain persons would not be prosecuted for assisting or encouraging someone to commit suicide. To do so would, allegedly, cross ‘the line of constitutional propriety’.

Dismissing the appeal, a majority of seven to two Supreme Court Justices held that they did not have the jurisdiction to change the law on assisted suicide. They also unanimously held that the guidance on assisted suicide was lawful. The case was then taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which declared the cases to be inadmissible and therefore declined to consider the merits of the cases (Nicklinson and Lamb v UK [2015] ECHR 709).

Later developments
Following the Supreme Court decision in Nicklinson, the DPP clarified an aspect of the policy on the prosecution of assisted suicide, in respect of situations where the suspect was a doctor or other healthcare professional and the victim was in their care. The amendment did not alter the words of the guidance but emphasised the requirement that the victim was in the suspect’s care and added a footnote explaining that it was necessary to consider whether the suspect could have exerted influence over the victim.

This was challenged by way of judicial review of the policy in R (on the application of Kenward) v DPP [2015] EWHC 3508 (Admin). The claimants were a severely disabled woman, and her husband and carer. They were concerned that the amendment would make it easier for doctors to escape prosecution for the unwanted death of a patient not in their care but who had been put under pressure by others to commit suicide. The claimants, who argued that the amendment was contrary to the law as set out in Nicklinson, were unsuccessful.

Nicklinson
A landmark case which raised similar issues is the case of Nicklinson, which was heard by the UK Supreme Court (R (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38). Mr Nicklinson suffered a stroke in June 2005 which caused ‘locked-in’ syndrome (complete paralysis but his mind was working perfectly). His condition was not life threatening and he had a reasonable expectation of living for years afterwards. In 2007, he decided to end his own life, but he would only have been able to do so by refusing all food and liquids. He wanted a doctor to end his life, but could not request that assistance while the doctor was likely to face a charge of murder or assisted suicide. Having failed to persuade the courts in various legal actions, Mr Nicklinson died of pneumonia in August 2012 after refusing nutrition, fluids and medical treatment. His wife continued the case and was joined by Mr Lamb (a man paralysed in an accident). Another case heard at the same time was that of AM (also referred to as ‘Martin’), who was unable to speak and virtually unable to move. He found his life intolerable and had made up his mind that he wanted to die. Because of his disability, he was unable to do so without assistance and was wholly reliant on his professional carers. Martin argued that:

the ‘Policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of encouraging or assisting suicide’ was an unjustified interference with his Article 8 right under the ECHR, because the consequences of the policy for the people whose assistance Martin sought were insufficiently certain; and
the policy disproportionately interfered with his Article 8 right, because it discouraged the assistance Martin sought.
The DPP argued that the policy is sufficiently clear and that it is not possible to guarantee that certain persons would not be prosecuted for assisting or encouraging someone to commit suicide. To do so would, allegedly, cross ‘the line of constitutional propriety’.

Dismissing the appeal, a majority of seven to two Supreme Court Justices held that they did not have the jurisdiction to change the law on assisted suicide. They also unanimously held that the guidance on assisted suicide was lawful. The case was then taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which declared the cases to be inadmissible and therefore declined to consider the merits of the cases (Nicklinson and Lamb v UK [2015] ECHR 709).

Later developments
Following the Supreme Court decision in Nicklinson, the DPP clarified an aspect of the policy on the prosecution of assisted suicide, in respect of situations where the suspect was a doctor or other healthcare professional and the victim was in their care. The amendment did not alter the words of the guidance but emphasised the requirement that the victim was in the suspect’s care and added a footnote explaining that it was necessary to consider whether the suspect could have exerted influence over the victim.

This was challenged by way of judicial review of the policy in R (on the application of Kenward) v DPP [2015] EWHC 3508 (Admin). The claimants were a severely disabled woman, and her husband and carer. They were concerned that the amendment would make it easier for doctors to escape prosecution for the unwanted death of a patient not in their care but who had been put under pressure by others to commit suicide. The claimants, who argued that the amendment was contrary to the law as set out in Nicklinson, were unsuccessful.

Convert this into various bullet points.
니클린슨비슷한 문제를 제기한 획기적인 사건은 영국 대법원에서 심리한 니클린슨 사건입니다(R(니클린슨의 신청에 관한) v 법무부 [2014] UKSC 38). 니클린슨은 2005년 6월 뇌졸중으로 인해 '락인' 증후군(신체는 완전히 마비되었지만 정신은 완벽하게 작동하는 상태)을 겪었습니다. 그의 상태는 생명을 위협할 정도는 아니었고 이후에도 몇 년간은 살 수 있을 것으로 예상했습니다. 2007년, 그는 스스로 목숨을 끊기로 결심했지만 모든 음식과 음료수를 거부해야만 그렇게 할 수 있었습니다. 그는 의사에게 자신의 삶을 끝내주기를 원했지만 의사가 살인 또는 자살 방조 혐의로 기소될 가능성이 있는 동안에는 그러한 도움을 요청할 수 없었습니다. 다양한 법적 소송을 통해 법원을 설득하는 데 실패한 니클린슨은 영양, 수액, 치료를 거부한 끝에 2012년 8월 폐렴으로 사망했습니다. 그의 아내는 소송을 계속했고 램(사고로 하반신이 마비된 남성)이 소송에 합류했습니다. 같은 시기에 접수된 또 다른 사례는 말을 할 수 없고 사실상 움직일 수 없는 AM('마틴'이라고도 함)의 사례였습니다. 그는 자신의 삶을 견딜 수 없어 죽고 싶다고 결심했습니다. 장애로 인해 다른 사람의 도움 없이는 혼자서는 아무것도 할 수 없었고, 전적으로 전문 간병인에게 의존하고 있었습니다. 마틴은 이렇게 주장했습니다:'자살을 조장하거나 방조하는 사건에 대한 검사에 대한 정책'은 마틴이 도움을 요청한 사람들에 대한 정책의 결과가 충분히 확실하지 않기 때문에 ECHR에 따른 자신의 제8조 권리에 대한 부당한 간섭이다.이 정책은 마틴이 추구한 지원을 막았기 때문에 그의 제8조 권리를 불균형적으로 침해했습니다.민중당은 이 정책이 충분히 명확하며 특정인이 자살을 돕거나 부추긴 혐의로 기소되지 않을 것이라고 보장할 수 없다고 주장했습니다. 그렇게 하는 것은 '헌법상 적정성의 한계선'을 넘어서는 것이라고 주장했습니다.대법관 7대 2의 다수 의견으로 상고를 기각한 대법원은 조력자살에 관한 법률을 변경할 권한이 없다고 판결했습니다. 또한 조력자살에 대한 지침이 적법하다고 만장일치로 판결했습니다. 그 후 이 사건은 유럽인권재판소에 회부되었고, 유럽인권재판소는 이 사건을 받아들일 수 없다고 선언하여 사건의 타당성을 고려하지 않았습니다(Nicklinson and Lamb v UK [2015] ECHR 709).이후 전개 상황니클린슨 대법원 판결 이후, 영국 검찰은 피의자가 의사 또는 기타 의료 전문가이고 피해자가 그들의 보살핌을 받고 있는 상황과 관련하여 조력 자살 기소에 관한 정책의 한 측면을 명확히 했습니다. 수정안은 지침의 문구를 변경하지는 않았지만 피해자가 피의자의 보살핌을 받고 있었다는 요건을 강조하고 피의자가 피해자에게 영향력을 행사할 수 있었는지 여부를 고려할 필요가 있다는 각주를 추가했습니다.이 정책은 R(Kenward의 적용에 관한) v DPP [2015] EWHC 3508 (행정) 사건에서 사법적 검토를 통해 이의를 제기했습니다. 청구인은 중증 장애인 여성과 그녀의 남편 및 간병인이었습니다. 이들은 개정안으로 인해 의사가 자신이 돌보지 않았지만 다른 사람으로부터 자살 압력을 받은 환자의 원치 않는 죽음에 대한 기소를 피하기 쉬워질 것을 우려했습니다. 이 개정안이 니클린슨 판결에 명시된 법에 위배된다고 주장한 청구인들은 소송을 제기했지만 실패했습니다.니클린슨유사한 문제를 제기한 획기적인 사건은 영국 대법원에서 심리한 니클린슨 사건입니다(R(니클린슨의 적용에 관한) v 법무부 [2014] UKSC 38). 니클린슨은 2005년 6월 뇌졸중으로 인해 '락인' 증후군(신체는 완전히 마비되었지만 정신은 완벽하게 작동하는 상태)을 겪었습니다. 그의 상태는 생명을 위협할 정도는 아니었고 이후에도 몇 년간은 살 수 있을 것으로 예상했습니다. 2007년, 그는 스스로 목숨을 끊기로 결심했지만 모든 음식과 음료수를 거부해야만 그렇게 할 수 있었습니다. 그는 의사에게 자신의 삶을 끝내주기를 원했지만 의사가 살인 또는 자살 방조 혐의로 기소될 가능성이 있는 동안에는 그러한 도움을 요청할 수 없었습니다. 다양한 법적 소송을 통해 법원을 설득하는 데 실패한 니클린슨은 영양, 수액, 치료를 거부한 끝에 2012년 8월 폐렴으로 사망했습니다. 그의 아내는 소송을 계속했고 램(사고로 하반신이 마비된 남성)이 소송에 합류했습니다. 같은 시기에 접수된 또 다른 사례는 말을 할 수 없고 사실상 움직일 수 없는 AM('마틴'이라고도 함)의 사례였습니다. 그는 자신의 삶을 견딜 수 없어 죽고 싶다고 결심했습니다. 장애로 인해 다른 사람의 도움 없이는 혼자서는 아무것도 할 수 없었고, 전적으로 전문 간병인에게 의존하고 있었습니다. 마틴은 이렇게 주장했습니다:'자살을 조장하거나 방조하는 사건과 관련한 검사에 대한 정책'은 다음과 같은 결과를 초래하기 때문에 ECHR에 따른 자신의 제8조 권리에 대한 부당한 간섭이라고 주장했습니다. 