Locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson loses voluntary euthanasia case in the High Court
Locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson has lost his High Court battle to have a doctor end his life without fear of prosecution.
I blogged some background on this case back in March.
You can access the full judiciary ruling here.
And a helpful judiciary media summary here.
Tags: Law Moral Ethical, News, Science & Medical
August 16th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
I feel desperately sorry for Tony Nicklinson, but it seems the judge had little option but to deny this, given the law as it stands.
When the laws relating to this were formulated, Mr Nicklinson would probably already have died in the natural course of events. The time will soon come when it is possible to artificially keep alive for an extended period just about anyone, regardless of their intense misery and pain. At what point do we decide that this denial of the right to die is too cruel, and too unnatural?
August 16th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Would imagine these court cases cost hundreds of thousands of pounds where do they get the money, is it not irresponsible, selfish and unsafe to attempt to change or reshape such a consequential and fundamental area of law in such a way – only to satisfy the selfish appetite of one individual?
August 16th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Regardless of the legal rights and wrongs it was the sight of Tony Nicklinson sobbing which made me wonder about voluntary euthanasia.
August 16th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
@Jane Chelliah,
Hundreds of thousands of disability tears at your local Atos Healthcare – DWP medical services offices, where doctors are only too willing to realize the fantasies and whims of their political masters – euthanasia in tandem with welfare reform what a hellish prospect.
August 17th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Oddly enough, now my AHRC funding has ended and I am still writing up my thesis I have been working part time in palliative care to support myself. What I find particularly interesting about actually DOING this work, is that the reality bears little resemblance to the image portrayed in the ever slithering to the Right, Christian media. If you believed the heavily inaccurate and/or factually misleading stories that seem the staple of certain Christian websites and lobbying groups (and alas there are so many eager to believe any story produced by these peddlers of misinformation, fear and untruths) you would think all terminally ill or elderly or disabled patients are being forced to accept euthanasia; or that it was the policy of present government to implement it ASAP.
But ain’t that the way these days. A long time before the ‘gay-marriage’ debate (tho’ perhaps I am being rather generous calling it a ‘debate’ as in reality it resulted in a considered and consistent hate and smear campaign on the part of those who claimed to be on the moral high ground!) the government had stated: “Marriages solemnized through a religious ceremony and on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman. The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage…”. Despite this assurance from Government, ink was replaced with bile and article after article and post after post on many a Christian blog and lobbying website claimed churches were going to be forced to conducted same-sex marriages against the will of clergy and congregations. It seemed our vocal friends on this topic were not interested in the reality of the situation or the plans concerning same-sex marriage, but waxed in the inverted pride of victimhood and lamented over a wrong that hadn’t been committed.
The same is true for much of the discussion concerning euthanasia. I have been working in end of life care for a decade or so (save two years off to do my PhD research). Within the profession (which is far more multi-disciplinary than much medical/social care) there has been a fairly consistent refusal to favour active euthanasia. Yet if we read the websites of some of our Christian chums you could easily believe that it is going to be legally enforced within the life of this Government. However, like same sex marriage, this is at best a misrepresentation of a necessary discussion around end of life and chronic illness and disability care; at worst it descends into lies and the macabre delight that some appear to take in spreading malicious stories and scare mongering.
There have to be debates about the morality of artificially keeping people alive or of giving ‘life-saving’ treatment that results in a person having no life at all. The problem is, many of those who write from the ‘Pro-Life’ side of this debate have little hands on experience of the reality of living with a catastrophic loss of physical or mental function; there aren’t enough people in positions of power within and without the Christian fold (or government for that matter) who have wiped another adult’s bottom! (I was a carer at a Leonard Cheshire Home for three years and have wiped more than my share of other people’s bottoms, by the way). Moreover, altho’ we as individuals have the power, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make advanced decisions about our treatment should we lose capacity (temporarily or permanently) few of us have taken the trouble. I haven’t formally registered my ‘Advanced Decision’ as yet, but I have drafted one that says if I get dementia or the like, any life extending medication and/or treatment should be stopped (as I am a chronic asthmatic, no flu jabs or treatment with antibiotics and steroids for a chest infection would probably see me off quite quickly!). Whatever, we all should be taking responsibility for our future care and make our wishes known. If we have a stroke or suffer horrific injuries in a RTA, Common Law takes over, in that although we are admitted to hospital in a state of unconsciousness, the presumption is that we are treated to save our lives, despite the fact we as the individual patient can’t give consent for that treatment. If there is a record of our wishes should we be in this unfortunate situation, this would help doctors in making the decision about giving treatment. If my brain has been reduced to scrambled egg, I don’t want treatment, I want to be allowed to die.
In the case of Mr Nicklinson, I think the court made the correct decision: I do not think doctors should be placed in the position of having to wilfully end a person’s life who is – despite profound disability – healthy. Yet I do not think it is the right of doctors to extend life beyond natural boundaries and I think people should be allowed to choose to let nature take its course.
It is a difficult and thorny issue and shame on many in the Pro-Life camp for sullying the debate with emotive hyperbole and sometimes downright lies. Many of us will at one point or other in our lives become physically or mentally disabled to a degree that will severely impact upon our quality of life; and all of us will die – and often death is not a very nice process. Yesterday I made home three visits – the youngest patient in her forties; one person I visited, with advance head and neck cancer, had half his face eaten away with cancer, couldn’t swallow, could hardly see, had lost his hearing in one ear, had lost the use of his tongue, was fed by a PEG feed directly into his stomach, was in severe pain much of the time, had tumour erupting through the skin of his neck and could well die of a ‘blow out’ (where the cancer weakens the carotid artery, it ruptures and the person bleeds to death – spraying blood everywhere in the process – it is an horrific way to die, both for the patient and their carers)). The man made no mention of euthanasia (we communicated via written notes on his part) but I wouldn’t have blamed him if he had…
None of us, while we sojourn in the land of ‘health’ and ‘capacity’, KNOW what it is like to live with profound disability or suffer the pain and humiliations of chronic or terminal illness and if anyone says they do, they are arrogant fools! Perhaps that is the real problem, we can’t know, until it is too late. There is an obvious and substantial methodological problem when it comes to researching what makes a good death: we can’t ask the person who did the dying how it was for them!
P.D.
August 17th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
@Goy – you do talk a lot of incoherent nonsense at times. How dare you describe the desire to end one’s life when faced with profound and total disability as ‘the selfish appetite of one individual’. This man is TOTALLY reliant on others for ALL his personal care and bodily needs. He doesn’t have the luxury of selfishness. If you are going insinuate your Contrarian views here, at least do it with a bit of decency and respect for people carrying burdens you should give thanks every day that you have not had to shoulder.
P.D.
August 17th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I really appreciated your inspiring and thought provoking comment fr Richard. I ceased calling myself a Christian long ago, but nonetheless I found your words expressed very eloquently how I felt. I suppose they will not earn you any friends amongst some Christian groups, but I share your frustration at some of the views expressed, without any knowledge or understanding of the reality.
August 19th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Interesting summing up of the legal arguments as a podcast here: http://t.co/GhuUqSVn
Of particularly interest is the clear statement that the government does not want to change the law on this issue… Despite some of the ill-founded accusations against the government and doctors by some commenters above…
P.D.