Man heads to High Court to win right to die
21 Jul 2010
A man who wants to be allowed to die rather than live as a
quadriplegic is taking his legal battle to the High Court.
Tony Nicklinson had a stroke in 2005 and is now a sufferer of
Locked-In Syndrome, meaning that he can communicate only by
blinking and nodding.
This means he would be unable to commit suicide himself and would
need assistance to end his life.
However, he wants the right for his wife to assist him without her
facing prosecution afterwards.
His legal team will argue that the current law which sees assisted
suicide as murder is a "disproportionate interference" with Mr
Nicklinson's human rights.
Although pro-choice groups such as Dignity in Dying are supporting
Mr Nicklinson's legal battle, critics including the Pro-Life
Allowance and Care Not Killing say that any changes in the law
could put vulnerable people at risk.
Mr Nicklinson said in a statement through his wife that if he could
turn back time, he would not have called the ambulance after his
stroke and that he no longer wishes to live.
Earlier this month, it was reported that a decision to switch off a
brain damaged man's life support had to be reversed after he
communicated that he wanted to stay alive.
Richard Judd, who had been badly injured in a motorbike accident,
was able to tell doctors 'yes' or 'no' by moving his eyes in
different directions and managed to inform them of his wishes
before his ventilators were disabled.
In June 2009, almost 800 Britons had signed up to the assisted
suicide clinic Dignitas in Switzerland so they could have the right
to die which does not exist in this country, the Daily Mail
reported.
Edward Kirton-Darling, a human rights solicitor at Hodge Jones
& Allen LLP comments:
“This is the latest in a long line of cases about whether
individuals have the right to die, and whether they can be assisted
if they choose to die. The courts have already determined
that the right to life, in Article 2 of the ECHR, does not extend
to the right to death (in the famous case of Diane Pretty).
"This case represents a new attempt to be allowed the right to be
assisted to die, by, it seems, seeking to argue that the right to
die forms part of the right to private and family life, and the
State should not interfere with the exercise of the right without
being able to justify it.”
