ForumGarden

A former Kent rugby player who wants the right to lawfully end his life is taking his battle to the High Court today.

Father-of-two Tony Nicklinson, 57, was left paralysed from the neck down and 'locked' in his body following a catastrophic stroke five years ago.

The former Cranbrook player is unable to speak and can only move his head and blink.

Bruv;1396851 wrote: A former Kent rugby player who wants the right to lawfully end his life is taking his battle to the High Court today.

Father-of-two Tony Nicklinson, 57, was left paralysed from the neck down and 'locked' in his body following a catastrophic stroke five years ago.

The former Cranbrook player is unable to speak and can only move his head and blink.


Any other era than this and they would have let him die with at least some measure of dignity

This relates to the other thread where babies are diagnosed in the womb and kept alive 'artificially' immediately after birth, so that treatment can be done later in their lives.



Perhaps this thread should be attached to the Great Ormond st thread ?

Think we've just missed a Dispatches report on him.

But yeah, there needs to be some sort of way out for people in that situation that doesn't involve criminal activity.

There should be a way to link the PC to a device that administers the drug himself.

Unless they alter the law itself of course.

Bruv;1396886 wrote: There should be a way to link the PC to a device that administers the drug himself.

Unless they alter the law itself of course.


According to the law as it stands I think that the person attaching the equipment to the PC, knowing that it had that capability, would be liable to a charge of manslaughter.

If that is true then despite the fact that the afflicted is in total control of taking his own life and has full choice in the matter, the blame is attached to the person who aided and abetted him in gaining that choice.

That's got to be wrong, surely?

Bryn Mawr;1396894 wrote: According to the law as it stands I think that the person attaching the equipment to the PC, knowing that it had that capability, would be liable to a charge of manslaughter.

If that is true then despite the fact that the afflicted is in total control of taking his own life and has full choice in the matter, the blame is attached to the person who aided and abetted him in gaining that choice.

That's got to be wrong, surely?


I think that is how the law stands at the moment in England. There was a thread a while back about a Scottish legal experiment that had relevance to this. I think they are trying to leave a way open to end a life which has become an unbearable burden. I have a feeling that the Kirk has a way around the ban on suicide - acts of compassion and mercy or something? gmc might know.

edit: it would be the ban on murder, not the ban on suicide.

It might not be wrong, but it's definitely not right.

Bruv;1396902 wrote: It might not be wrong, but it's definitely not right.


Would you keep a dog alive in that condition or would you be kind and put it down?

Bryn Mawr;1396906 wrote: Would you keep a dog alive in that condition or would you be kind and put it down?


I'd put the poor thing down. But people aren't dogs, and it's an awful precedent to set. I'm in favour of a way out, but it's with a shuddering awareness of how that precedent could be misused. It's a very big line to cross, even if we try to say we're not crossing it, we're just shifting it a bit. Which I am, I think.

Clodhopper;1396911 wrote: I'd put the poor thing down. But people aren't dogs, and it's an awful precedent to set. I'm in favour of a way out, but it's with a shuddering awareness of how that precedent could be misused. It's a very big line to cross, even if we try to say we're not crossing it, we're just shifting it a bit. Which I am, I think.


I have written a living will stating the circumstances under which I wish my life to be terminated - it has absolutely no force in a court of law but I feel better for saying when to put me out of my misery.

As long as the wishes of the person concerned are clear I see no problem with setting that precedent.

Bryn Mawr;1396906 wrote: Would you keep a dog alive in that condition or would you be kind and put it down?


This person is NOT a dog.

I would put a dog down without hesitation.

There are only two events in a life of any great value, birth and death, all the others are merely paragraphs or punctuation.

Whether King or pauper, dipstick or intellectual, life is the only thing we have.

It is strange that as we get cleverer and can virtually keep a cadaver 'alive' or should that be .....keep a cadaver virtually alive, we value 'empty' shells of bodies with no quality of life, hanging on to a life 'second handedly' ..............while killing on an industrial scale.

Funny old world ain't it ?

Bruv;1396916 wrote: This person is NOT a dog.

I would put a dog down without hesitation.

There are only two events in a life of any great value, birth and death, all the others are merely paragraphs or punctuation.

Whether King or pauper, dipstick or intellectual, life is the only thing we have.

It is strange that as we get cleverer and can virtually keep a cadaver 'alive' or should that be .....keep a cadaver virtually alive, we value 'empty' shells of bodies with no quality of life, hanging on to a life 'second handedly' ..............while killing on an industrial scale.

Funny old world ain't it ?


No - but they have to live just the same. Would you want to continue to live in that condition - I wouldn't.

It was Stalin who pointed out that one death was a tragedy, but a million just a statistic. Horrible, but I fear true. I struggle to really imagine a million deaths. I certainly can't identify with that many, but I can identify with one person, or even A group. But a million? I can't really feel it, beyond a sort of generalised horror.

Bryn Mawr;1396917 wrote: No - but they have to live just the same. Would you want to continue to live in that condition - I wouldn't.


I think the man concerned should have the right to decide, I don't know what my decision might be, but I would like to have the choice.

I think a living will might be the way ahead, though I'd probably want it written before the events which triggered the requirements. For something like a persistent vegetative state I think I'd be happy with a clear court definition. I have a faint bell ringing which might suggest that already exists, but it might have to be applied for in each case or something????

edit: On checking, so far as I can find, the courts accept brain death as death for the purposes of organ donation, but other than that, there doesn't appear to be a legal definition - the courts accept a doctor's medical certification that the person is dead.

Should we always have the right to decide? Even if we are otherwise healthy? Let's say if over a two year period you consistently stated a wish to die should you be allowed assistance to do so without making a mess of the bathroom?

Clodhopper;1396933 wrote: Should we always have the right to decide? Even if we are otherwise healthy? Let's say if over a two year period you consistently stated a wish to die should you be allowed assistance to do so without making a mess of the bathroom?
Anyone wanting to die over a two year period in otherwise a healthy condition must have mental health issues?

If he was fit and healthy - leaving aside his state of mind no one would be able to stop him committing suicide because he would be able to do it himself. We prevent people committing suicide when they are fit and healthy because we regard them as being mentally ill. He isn't mentally ill but he is not physically fit it should be his decision to end his life and no one else's. Suicides used to be buried in unconsecrated graves and were going straight to hell. people are now surviving accidents and illness that would have killed them not so long ago and we can keep the body alive when the brain is dead - in those cases we allow the relatives to decide to turn off the machines why is it so hard to accept an individual should be able to decide that their life is so bad they want to end it and the only reason they haven't is because they cannot do it themselves. .

Anyone wanting to die over a two year period in otherwise a healthy condition must have mental health issues?


Must they? And even if they do and it can't be dealt with in two years that's also a hellish existence and a perhaps incurable condition?

I'm just wondering if there should be some sort of right to death as a matter of the freedom of the individual. I hope some way can be found even if it must be a case by case basis in the courts for people in Tony Nicklinson's condition.

Clodhopper;1396963 wrote: Must they? And even if they do and it can't be dealt with in two years that's also a hellish existence and a perhaps incurable condition?

I'm just wondering if there should be some sort of right to death as a matter of the freedom of the individual. I hope some way can be found even if it must be a case by case basis in the courts for people in Tony Nicklinson's condition.


The bulk of those most vocal in opposing the idea do so on religious grounds. The MSP who proposed then law be changed in scotland is margo MacDonald

BBC News - Margo MacDonald's End of Life Assistance Bill revived

Attempting suicide is not illegal in the UK - you have to wonder at the mentality that once made it so.

Bruv;1396924 wrote: I think the man concerned should have the right to decide, I don't know what my decision might be, but I would like to have the choice.


That's all I've ever asked for, the right to decide my own fate if needs be - the current rules deny me that right.

Clodhopper;1396933 wrote: Should we always have the right to decide? Even if we are otherwise healthy? Let's say if over a two year period you consistently stated a wish to die should you be allowed assistance to do so without making a mess of the bathroom?


In order to make a rational choice you need to be able to show that you are rational. The wish to die when healthy is commonly a sign of mental illness so no, I would say not.

Bryn Mawr;1397071 wrote: In order to make a rational choice you need to be able to show that you are rational. The wish to die when healthy is commonly a sign of mental illness so no, I would say not.


So you should be allowed to end the misery if suffering from an incurable physical ailment, but not an incurable mental one?

I'm not certain on any of this, btw. Just trying out arguments.

Clodhopper;1397194 wrote: So you should be allowed to end the misery if suffering from an incurable physical ailment, but not an incurable mental one?

I'm not certain on any of this, btw. Just trying out arguments.


Many mental conditions are temporary or treatable.

Not allowing the same rules for a temporary mental condition seems proper to me, next week the person concerned will regret having had such thoughts.

Bruv;1397203 wrote: Many mental conditions are temporary or treatable.

Not allowing the same rules for a temporary mental condition seems proper to me, next week the person concerned will regret having had such thoughts.


Oh yes, absolutely agreed. But should someone who is eg schizophrenic, have the right to say, "Enough"? I'm trying to look at the principle without at this point worrying too much about whether it is practical.

(I use schizophrenia as an example because it's generally reckoned incurable, certainly once it has set in properly. Or it was last I heard.)

Clodhopper;1397194 wrote: So you should be allowed to end the misery if suffering from an incurable physical ailment, but not an incurable mental one?

I'm not certain on any of this, btw. Just trying out arguments.


How do you show that a mental condition is incurable? It takes more than two years to cure some physical illnesses so the time period is not, in itself, enough.

Bryn: Ah. We posted at the same moment. By chance, I think mine above is also relevant to your post.

Clodhopper;1397494 wrote: Bryn: Ah. We posted at the same moment. By chance, I think mine above is also relevant to your post.


My understanding was that schizophrenia, whilst incurable, is controllable with drugs and the sufferer can have a reasonable quality of life?

Umf. One of the troubles with schizophrenia is that no-one has ever really clearly defined what it is and when I was doing a psychology course a decade ago people talked of a "range of schizophrenic symptoms". So while some sufferers might respond well to drugs, others don't in a variety of ways.

Mind you, could such a sufferer ever be considered of sufficiently sound mind to make a decision? Think we'd have to be in living will territory, and while I think it might be right in principle to allow people suffering from a mental disorder to end it, in practice, knowing that was truly the will of the person might be impossible.

Lots of grey in this area...

Given the six years since it took place I think it worthwhile linking back to a previous discussion on this subject :-

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/watch ... ysprune=-1

Posts two and six give my position, then and now.

The guy got his wish

I was hesitant to post a comment earlier, something like "I'm delighted to see that Tony Nicklinson died this morning" sounded harsh.

"Delighted Tony got his wish" might be a better way to frame it.

It's a shame he never got to choose the timing or the nature of his own death. That was tragically taken away from him, both by the courts and by his final ilness.