Right to Die

[sadie1263]

Lawyers want a ruling that a doctor could intervene to end Tony Nicklinson's ''indignity'' and have a ''common law defence of necessity'' against any murder charge.

They expect a judge in the Family Division of the High Court to begin hearing arguments in the near future and say the case will be a ''test'' which raises ''difficult'' questions about euthanasia.

Mr Nicklinson - who is married with two grown-up daughters and lives in Melksham, Wiltshire - had a stroke in 2005 and was left with ''locked-in syndrome'', say lawyers.

''The effect of the stroke is that Tony cannot move anything except his head and eyes. He is paralysed below the neck, unable to speak and needs help with every single aspect of his life,'' said a spokesman for law firm Bindmans, which represents Mr Nicklinson.

''However, Tony is mentally competent and can make decisions about life. He believes fervently in the right to self-determination.

''He communicates through the use of a perspex board or by using his Eye-Blink computer and sums up his life as 'dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable'.

''He is too physically disabled to take his own life but he wants the right to self-determination, just like any able-bodied person, who can choose to take his or her own life.''

The spokesman added: ''(Mr Nicklinson) has today issued proceedings in the High Court asking for declarations that it is lawful for a doctor to terminate his life, with his consent and with him making the decision with full mental capacity.

''He seeks a declaration that the common law defence of necessity is available to a charge of murder in a case of voluntary active euthanasia, provided that the court has sanctioned the act in advance.''

Solicitor Saimo Chahal said: ''This will be a test case and raises many difficult legal, moral and ethical questions about euthanasia.''

Ms Chahal added: ''Tony's case is a very compelling one and ultimately it is for the court to weigh up the evidence and to decide.''

Lawyers said Mr Nicklinson had been married to his wife Jane for 25 years and the couple had two daughters - Lauren, 24 and Beth, 23.
They said he had a stroke in June 2005 while working as a manager for a Greek civil engineering company based in the United Arab Emirates.
''When the time is right I want to be able to die at home with a drug which a doctor could give me so that I can take it with help and go to sleep peacefully with my family around to say goodbye to me,'' said Mr Nicklinson, in a statement issued by Bindmans. ''That would be a good death.''

He added: ''What I have to look forward to is a wretched ending with uncertainty, pain, and suffering while my family watch on helplessly. Why must I suffer these indignities? If I were able-bodied I could put an end to my life when I want to. Why is life so cruel?''

In 2010, lawyers considered using another legal route in an effort to help Mr Nicklinson.

They looked into trying to clarify the law on "mercy killing" by seeking guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer.
But Ms Chahal said they had decided that an approach to a judge in the Family Division of the High Court was a better way forward.

[gg]

Just another case where the idiot legislators and parasitic lawyers have taken control of private lives. If the man is of sound mind it should be his decision alone. If he isn't, it should be a decision among his wife and patents.

It's not the government or the lawyers who are paying the bills

[Deleted]

Poor man. But at least he is able to communicate; so many are not following a stroke.

I'm glad these decisions rest with the courts. Doctors should never be required to supply things to a helpless patients just because they can't get up to do it themselves. If a bedridden person decided they had the right to get roaring drunk every night, or eat until they were too heavy to lift, are their carers morally obliged to supply them with limitless alcohol and food? I think not.

As for spouses deciding whether the mentally incapable should live or die - what an awful burden to put on them.

[gg]

Dec 9, 2011 16:36:45 GMT @skylark said:

Poor man. But at least he is able to communicate; so many are not following a stroke.

I'm glad these decisions rest with the courts. Doctors should never be required to supply things to a helpless patients just because they can't get up to do it themselves. If a bedridden person decided they had the right to get roaring drunk every night, or eat until they were too heavy to lift, are their carers morally obliged to supply them with limitless alcohol and food? I think not.

As for spouses deciding whether the mentally incapable should live or die - what an awful burden to put on them.

since he can communicate with his spouse- how much of a burden could it be on her if he says he wants to go. If she looks at that like a burden she is being totally selfish

[Deleted]

We are talking about the "mentally incapable" which by definition includes those who don't know what they are saying or doing. When this happens, the person you love has often become a stranger. Asking a wife to work out what her husband really means when he says "I want to die" one minute but then goes on to talk about the future....tough. I think that would be a burden, every bit as much as trying to guess the thoughts of someone who can't express themselves at all.

And please don't try to justify a "mercy killing" with the old "it is what he would have wanted" argument. What he felt like as a fit man has nothing to do with how he feels now.

[sadie1263]

It sounds like this man can communicate his wishes. He may not be ready to go now but seems to be fighting for the right to determine that when or if he does decide to......

I don't believe someone that is mentally incapable should be able to decide that but for people that still have their mental capabilities intact I do believe it should be their personal choice.

[gg]

Dec 10, 2011 0:07:48 GMT sadie1263 said:

It sounds like this man can communicate his wishes. He may not be ready to go now but seems to be fighting for the right to determine that when or if he does decide to......

I don't believe someone that is mentally incapable should be able to decide that but for people that still have their mental capabilities intact I do believe it should be their personal choice.

you make too much sense to be sadie. what have you done with her? who are you really?

[Deleted]

I wouldn't disagree with Sadie on this gg - it was the last part of your : " If the man is of sound mind it should be his decision alone. If he isn't, it should be a decision among his wife and patents. " I'm taking issue with ( I presume you meant "parents"?).

It is not strictly true that this man has no means of taking his own life. Some people in his position do take the brave step of refusing food and water, but it is a slow and often very painful way to die; I can well sympathise with his desire for a better end.

[toby]

Toby comments.:- It's all about choice and I for one am very concerned that any government has wheedled and inveigled the decision away from the sufferer and his / her Family.
There is far too much intrusion into our lives by governments.

[gg]

Dec 10, 2011 7:12:42 GMT @skylark said:

I wouldn't disagree with Sadie on this gg - it was the last part of your : " If the man is of sound mind it should be his decision alone. If he isn't, it should be a decision among his wife and patents. " I'm taking issue with ( I presume you meant "parents"?).

It is not strictly true that this man has no means of taking his own life. Some people in his position do take the brave step of refusing food and water, but it is a slow and often very painful way to die; I can well sympathise with his desire for a better end.

I would disagree with sadie about whether the sun is shining or not. ;D
They would probably feed him thru the veins if he tried to starve himself. I assume that's how he is being fed now.

This all boils down to ownership which doesn't exist. He is MY husband or he is MY child. He didn't come TO her, he came THRU her to be on his OWN path. When he knows he has learned what he is here for this time and is ready to go back- get out of the way and let him go.

[gg]

Dec 10, 2011 9:18:36 GMT toby said:

Toby comments.:- It's all about choice and I for one am very concerned that any government has wheedled and inveigled the decision away from the sufferer and his / her Family.
There is far too much intrusion into our lives by governments.

Man have you got that RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deleted]

They would probably feed him thru the veins if he tried to starve himself. I assume that's how he is being fed now.

He is probably fed via a stomach tube, as my father was. Unlike the man here, my father could not communicate well, though he understood a question and could indicate yes or no.

The nursing home matron suprised me during a conversation about this very same topic by saying "he could refuse food, and a few do".

From what I have read since, doctors will support this decision and offer palliative care to ease the pain. What they won't do is actively kill someone, unless authorised by the courts.