Man with locked-in syndrome loses right-to-die case at UK High Court - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62284000/jpg/_62284580_60991966.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]A man paralysed from the neck down has lost his High Court case to allow doctors to end his life without fear of prosecution.[/B] Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, communicates by blinking and has described his life as a "living nightmare" since a stroke in 2005. Mr Nicklinson said he would appeal against the decision. The case went further than previous challenges to the law in England and Wales on assisted suicide and murder. [B]'Misery'[/B] Father-of-two Mr Nicklinson was left paralysed with locked-in syndrome after a catastrophic stroke while on a business trip to Athens. Speaking through a machine just before the judgement, Mr Nicklinson said he would be "relieved" to know the verdict. He added: "If I lose we will appeal, and I am forced to live a life I no longer want for a while longer." The case differed from other "right-to-die" cases which have focused on assisted suicide. Mr Nicklinson would be unable to take lethal drugs, even if they were prepared by someone else. For someone else to kill him would amount to murder. In June, his barrister Paul Bowen QC told the High Court: "Tony has now had almost seven years to contemplate his situation. "With the continuing benefits of 21st Century health and social care his life expectancy can be expected to be normal - another 20 years or more. He does not wish to live that life." Mr Bowen added: "The claimant, who has made a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his own life with dignity, is too disabled to do so. "The current law of assisted suicide and euthanasia operate to prevent him from adopting the only means by which he could practically end his life, namely with medical assistance." [B]'Untenable'[/B] David Perry QC, who is representing the Ministry of Justice, said Mr Nicklinson's "tragic and very distressing circumstances evoke the deepest sympathy". "Notwithstanding the distressing facts of his situation, the defendant submits that the claim for declarations is untenable. The law is well established," he added. The case is being contested on the issue of "necessity" arguing that the only way to end Mr Nicklinson's suffering is to allow him to die. This was used in 2000 when conjoined twins were separated, saving one even though doctors knew the other would die. Mr Nicklinson's team will also argue that his case is covered by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which deals with the right to respect for private and family life. The judges will also publish a determination in the case of another paralysed man with locked-in syndrome, named only as Martin, who is 47. Part of his case involves a challenge to the Director of Public Prosecution's policy on assisted suicide.[/quote]

What the fuck? It should be someones choice if they want to end their life. There shouldn't even have to be a court case.

They're keeping a man alive for near 20 years against his own will when he can't even fucking move or talk, when it's been clearly expressed he doesn't want to live? This is basically institutionalized torture.

Ok this is fucking terrible, the guy is live on BBC crying right now, he looks distraught Edit: Press just left the room to give him privacy

I've been following this man's story, I'm so sorry that the verdict came the way it did...

I hate our judiciary at times

The BBC are explaining it quite well, it appears that they were trying to change the law on murder. Unsurprisingly this isn't something a court can do. Even the charities that support this sort of thing disagree with this, they just want to adjust the suicide law.

[QUOTE=Jsm;37268606]The BBC are explaining it quite well, it appears that they were trying to change the law on murder. Unsurprisingly this isn't something a court can do. Even the charities that support this sort of thing disagree with this, they just want to adjust the suicide law.[/QUOTE] They have to alter the murder law, you don't understand. Because of his state, he can't even take lethal drugs provided for him, therefore someone administering them to him is, currently, deemed as murder, which is what they're trying to change.

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;37268626]They have to alter the murder law, you don't understand. Because of his state, he can't even take lethal drugs provided for him, therefore someone administering them to him is, currently, deemed as murder, which is what they're trying to change.[/QUOTE] The person from a charity (dignity in dying? I can't remember) was suggesting that by modifying the suicide law it can be made legal for someone to assist another person in dying, which is of course currently illegal.

Yes, the reason this is even a big thing is because he cant take his own life. Someone else has to do it. But that is considered murder. So thats why its a issue.

It is kind of hard with this case, assisted suicide is about having someone else set it all up i.e. supply the drugs, but the subject still has to actually take the drugs themselves. The only way I can think of to make it work would be a computer system that he can navigate by blinking, which then administers the drugs when he activates it But of course assisted suicide isn't even legal in the first place

Been following him on Twitter for a few months now, he's a really nice guy and I feel sorry for him that he isn't allowed to make his own choices.

[QUOTE=smurfy;37268700]It is kind of hard with this case, assisted suicide is about having someone else set it all up i.e. supply the drugs, but the subject still has to actually take the drugs themselves. The only way I can think of to make it work would be a computer system that he can navigate by blinking, which then administers the drugs when he activates it But of course assisted suicide isn't even legal in the first place[/QUOTE] They could just provide him some chemicals due to him wanting to do a "science experiment" and him take his own life using the above method. Also they could have it so he moves a wheelchair using blink commands, he could just drive into a lake.

I don't understand things like this with the government. It's like we're not allowed to do anything with our body without permission when we are our own permission. Just like what we consume is by their okay.

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;37268923]They could just provide him some chemicals due to him wanting to do a "science experiment" and him take his own life using the above method. Also they could have it so he moves a wheelchair using blink commands, he could just drive into a lake.[/QUOTE] Assisted suicide is one thing, but I don't think anyone wants to do it by drowning. Seriously, drowning is fucking horrible. Might as well have his end be painless, quick and peaceful.

I don't know, what would you rather do? Live a long 20 years of mental distress and misery at the force of heavy depression you literally unable to do anything at all about it, not even move, or 20 seconds of intense physical distress and pain.

If the man wants to die let him die. You don't need a right to die, that's torture for this poor bugger.

It really isn't as simple as people would like to believe It's more about the ethics and possible ramifications that euthanasia might bring if it was allowed If I was this guy I'd fly to wherever that country is where it's legal. I'm sure he'll find a way out of this, I'm sure I would if I was in his condition and I just wanted to die

[QUOTE=supersoldier58;37268990]I don't know, what would you rather do? Live a long 20 years of mental distress and misery at the force of heavy depression you literally unable to do anything at all about it, not even move, or 20 seconds of intense physical distress and pain.[/QUOTE] I'm saying it shouldn't be an option in the first place. They should let him die.

I don't see why they can't make a computer program where he can operate his own lethal injection. But ultimately I understand the the stance the law has taken. It really isn't as black and white as people assume.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37269239]I don't see why they can't make a computer program where he can operate his own lethal injection. But ultimately I understand the the stance the law has taken. It really isn't as black and white as people assume.[/QUOTE] Preventing him from taking his own life [I]is[/I] treating it like it's black and white. If a guy incapable of any independent action but blinking can't die of his own accord, then there is no consideration taking place in the law.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;37268951]Assisted suicide is one thing, but I don't think anyone wants to do it by drowning. Seriously, drowning is fucking horrible. Might as well have his end be painless, quick and peaceful.[/QUOTE] I've actually read that once you get past the stage where the water hurts your lungs, drowning is actually very tranquil

If he tries to starve himself and they incarcerate and start force feeding him, so many people are gonna be pissed the fuck off.

[QUOTE=TheCloak;37269615]I've actually read that once you get past the stage where the water hurts your lungs, drowning is actually very tranquil[/QUOTE] gee, sure sounds it. anyway, i feel sorry for him, but it's not just him, changing the rule for one means having to change it for many the law can't make exceptions for ONE man that wouldn't be fair. besides, he's not the ONLY person that would wish to be 'helped along' he's asking to be murdered no matter how you look at it or dress it up, so i can understand why the law is having a fit over it i don't agree with the outcome, but i understand it. (but isn't this kinda thing legal in sweden?)

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;37269558]Preventing him from taking his own life [I]is[/I] treating it like it's black and white. If a guy incapable of any independent action but blinking can't die of his own accord, then there is no consideration taking place in the law.[/QUOTE] The problem here is that he can't take his own life, someone else has to take it themselves, which is murder. That's the tricky part of all this.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9480227/Tony-Nicklinson-breaks-down-as-High-Court-rejects-his-right-to-die-plea.html[/url] Video is in this source, really heartbreaking :(

[QUOTE=smurfy;37268700]It is kind of hard with this case, assisted suicide is about having someone else set it all up i.e. supply the drugs, but the subject still has to actually take the drugs themselves. The only way I can think of to make it work would be a computer system that he can navigate by blinking, which then administers the drugs when he activates it But of course assisted suicide isn't even legal in the first place[/QUOTE] what if you put him in a box with a cat which at any point may or may not administer poison. that way you can argue he is both dead and alive

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37269818]If he tries to starve himself and they incarcerate and start force feeding him, so many people are gonna be pissed the fuck off.[/QUOTE] he's hinted and suggested that so many times that if he loses his plea he'll just refuse to do anything he's already told his wife if I'm choking to not save me and don't give me any medicine shouldn't it be fucking obvious this guy is living a nightmare?

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;37269558]Preventing him from taking his own life [I]is[/I] treating it like it's black and white. If a guy incapable of any independent action but blinking can't die of his own accord, then there is no consideration taking place in the law.[/QUOTE] But law works in precedents. He is allowed to take his own life, he just cant. They want it legally to be allowed that one person can take the life of an other.

[QUOTE=WhatAmI;37269008]It really isn't as simple as people would like to believe It's more about the ethics and possible ramifications that euthanasia might bring if it was allowed If I was this guy I'd fly to wherever that country is where it's legal. I'm sure he'll find a way out of this, I'm sure I would if I was in his condition and I just wanted to die[/QUOTE] To sort of quote what his wife said in the interview on the BBC a short while ago "why the hell should he have to go to an industrial estate in another country to end his life?". [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Shiftyze;37268948]I don't understand things like this with the government. It's like we're not allowed to do anything with our body without permission when we are our own permission. Just like what we consume is by their okay.[/QUOTE] The problem here is he can't do it, he needs someone to murder him. If he was able to take his own life nothing would be stopping him, the issue is entirely in the fact that a third party would need to be involved, and that third party would be arrested for murder. IIRC this guy has gone to court before to try and get it so his wife can kill him without her being done for murder. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;37269239]I don't see why they can't make a computer program where he can operate his own lethal injection. But ultimately I understand the the stance the law has taken. It really isn't as black and white as people assume.[/QUOTE] Some Australian scientist did this a while ago while it was legal down there, it's a scary looking peice of kit.