Some with locked-in syndrome do not want to die. But Tony Nicklinson does.

Tony Nicklinson wife Jane wipes away tears as he reacts as a statement is read out regarding the decision made today by High Court judges not to allow him to ask a doctor to end his life.

A man is suffering and needs help. The treatment is easily administered and has almost guaranteed success. We watch, and sympathise, and discuss at length the shame and the shock of his situation, how we couldn’t imagine his pain. But we do nothing.

Tony Nicklinson has locked-in syndrome. A stroke seven years ago left him paralysed, unable eat or move or speak without help. Some with the same syndrome do not want to die. But Mr Nicklinson does. Talking through a computer, he describes his existence as “undignified, distressing and intolerable.” His condition means he could only take his own life unaided through starvation, a torturous process that could take weeks. Tony wants help to enable a quick and dignified death.

Mr Nicklinson appealed to the Divisional Court to allow others to assist his suicide. But the judges who reviewed his case felt that allowing his euthanasia would alter the law as to create a defence for murder. The court decided it was for Parliament, not judges, to makesuch significant legal changes.

Assisted suicide has been discussed in Parliament before, and I suspect another Commons review will alter little. We have yet to find the mechanism that enables people like Tony Nicklinson to end their own life with the help of others, without creating a potential for the elderly, disabled or terminally ill to be coerced into death.

The intellectual argument is sound – benefitting a minority of rare, well-publicised cases is not enough to outweigh the potential harm to a far larger group of vulnerable people. But that doesn’t help Mr Nicklinson. The needless distress of a man powerless to choose his own fate is deplorable. No matter how well we justify our position, what we are doing to him remains wrong.

I want to help Tony. He has been robbed of his self-determination, and now his dignity is further degraded as he becomes the visceral embodiment of an ethical curiosity. He demonstrates the lag between our slowly evolving law and rapidly changing medicine. As the arguments stack up on either side, Tony is left in the middle.

Campaign group Care Not Killing hopes that a line is now drawn “once and for all under legal debate.” I would urge for the opposite. Just because we don’t have a way to treat Tony fairly doesn’t mean we should stop trying to find one.

It is easy to know what’s right and wrong when circumstances are clear cut and precedents have already been established. Rather than ignore the difficult questions, or prevaricate and pass the buck between different branches of government, we have to engage with these problems. People like Tony are not going to go away. They will continue to fight for their cause and become increasingly numerous as our medicine becomes ever more sophisticated. Closing ourselves off to the possibility of a more just and dignified approach to death is surely the wrong attitude.

Recent Posts on Notebook

• In the 'European Month of the Brain' should we be open-minded about spiritual solutions?
• Hearing loss: An invisible impairment and a preventable disability
• Barking Blondes: When to vaccinate
• Enslaved to maize: Why we need to re-think Malawi's agricultural future
• The real ghetto superstar: Why Floyd Mayweather is no Muhammad Ali

• Deborah Soutar

  The debate is of course colored by the bottom line of belief that one holds. If one is religious (in this case Christian for example) to kill one self is not an option. God has the final say, because we are all sent here for a purpose, there is a plan. Until one has completed that purpose or does something incredible stupid we remain here to slough our way through life. In the Afterlife we will receive whatever it is we earned through our actions and choices in this life.
  If one has no religious belief system then life is relatively cheap. It doesn’t matter when, where or how one dies. The world has plenty of others to take your place. Since there is no afterlife what one does here affects nothing.
  There is a slippery slope at the precipice of this decision. Sociopaths like Hitler and Stalin and their ilk would take the ruling to kill those who THEY decide are deficient and rid the world of them. If you think we don’t have people like that today you’re sadly mistaken, they just wear three piece suits and spout platitudes about equality, fairness and happiness for all. In the end they will champion gender favored abortions, one child laws and the denial of care for the elderly, infirm and disabled. We see it in “industrialized” countries throughout the world already.

• junipersnippets

  While it is true that God does not condone suicide, there is no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1). When we are truely saved, we are given eternal life. This gracious, unmerited gift is given by God through our faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10). Eternal life is not based upon anything we do or do not do when we proclaim Christ as our Savior. I am not advocating suicide, no certainly not. But what good would our faith do us if our salvation was dependent upon our actions? We are saved not by what we have done or have not done; salvation is from Christ alone and His atoning sacrifice on the cross. Our sin put Him there, but His love held Him there until His work was accomplished.Praise God! I don’t know if the gentleman in the article knows the gospel, but if he doesn’t, someone should tell him the good news. He really needs to hear it.

• Eileen Spamer

  what do you mean by anti-christian?. this chap has a right to do with his life as he wishes, sick or not. eileen.spamer@gmail.com