UK court to rule on paralyzed man’s bid to authorize a doctor to end his life

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

UK court to rule on paralyzed man’s bid to authorize a doctor to end his life
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, March 12, 3:28 AM

LONDON — A British judge is due to make a preliminary ruling on a paralyzed man’s wish that a doctor be allowed to end his life.

The ruling expected Monday is on the government’s bid to throw out the case.

The case was brought by Tony Nicklinson, who suffers from “locked-in” syndrome. Since suffering a stroke in 2005, he has been incapable of moving except to blink his eyes, but his mind is unaffected.

Because he is unable to end his own life, the 57-year-old man is seeking permission for a doctor to kill him. He communicates through a computer which recognizes his eye blinks.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-court-to-rule-on-paralyzed-mans-bid-to-authorize-a-doctor-to-end-his-life/2012/03/12/gIQAhiom6R_story.html

[dipsydoodle]

1. Case has been allowed to proceed

Just breaking now on BBC. Will edit to post link when available.

[dipsydoodle]

2. 'Locked-in syndrome' man to have right-to-die case heard

Tony Nicklinson, who is paralysed and wants a doctor to be able to lawfully end his life, should be allowed to proceed with his "right-to-die" case, a High Court judge has ruled.

The 58-year-old from Melksham, Wiltshire, has "locked-in syndrome" following a stroke in 2005 and is unable to carry out his own suicide.

His is seeking legal protection for any doctor who helps him end his life.

The Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would change murder laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774

[ck4829]

3. Keeping this man alive against his will is torture

[ProfessionalLeftist]

4. I agree. n/t

[Hoyt]

5. Agree as well. Would like to see similar issue addressed in USA too.

[Smilo]

6. It is his life and as long as he

can communicate his wishes - then they should be honored.

I think the difficulty for him will be finding a doctor who will assist him. Unless they can be guaranteed anonymity, then they are opening themselves to the equivalent of the anti-abortion people and we all know what they are like.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. has anyone seen the movie The Sea Inside?

The real-life story of Spaniard Ramon Sampedro, a paraplegic, who fought a 30 year campaign in favor of euthanasia and his own right to die.
Did a fine job of touching on all the issues.

[loyalsister]

8. What if it was agoraphobia?

They would be considered "depressed." Why do we not see this guy as suicidal because he is depressed in a way natural to many of us when we are sick, sad or life is just at it's most difficult?

I am not in his condition, but the horror and emotional bias toward it is not helpful here. When that becomes the driving factor in these decisions we go down a slippery slope where decisions to commit suicide are assumed and endorsed.
Most people who are paralyzed are at some point asked (even by strangers) if they have thought about killing themselves. Is there anyone else you can think of who would be asked that by people they barely know? "So, since you look like that and can't do everything "normally" wouldn't you just rather die?" How does a decision like this influence trauma teams at car accidents?

When death is inevitable and clearly soon imminent, disagree with interference.

But if courts decide that one's experience is so horrible they can die if they want to, how soon before the suicide of people with major depression becomes normalized and the disorder itself is ignored?

There is a lot to consider, but I think going by our own perception of his experience is not the most valid perspective. I am sure the judge has other facts to consider that I am unaware of, but I am just concerned about the implications on other people.

[pitohui]

9. look you wouldn't do it to a dog

sorry but if you wouldn't do it to a dog (keep him alive when he could only communicate by eye blinks and was begging to die) why the HELL would you do this to a human being who is in full possession of an aware mind?

keeping him alive is just cruelty, and it should not continue against his express wishes

7 years in hell unable to move and to have to learn to speak through eye blinks is just outrageous, and the sad thing is the doctor who "saved" him in this condition after the stroke probably thinks he is a hero, no vet would do anything this dirty to the smallest animal and pat himself on the back for it

we treat animals better than we treat ourselves, and yes we DO have the right (and the duty) to go by our own perceptions when he says his life is not worth living -- surely we have empathy enough to know we would not trade our life for his if he held all bill gates' gold

it IS my concern because similar stuff has been done to my relatives, one relative kept alive with alzheimer's for 20 years for the profit of a nursing home, it's just cruel and sickening

you wouldn't do it to a dog, don't do it to a human

a shadow hangs over my life because i DO have to worry about being tortured endlessly for the last years of my life, it is easy to say "oh we don't have to think about it" when someone is from a background where they've never seen this done and they figure it's a rare thing that will never touch them

[loyalsister]

10. If you were to reread my post

Which compares this situation to real people who have mental illness. What exactly would the dog analogy say about people in such positions?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I don't see why mental illness is relevant

The man is able to think and decide for himself; he has made his wishes known. There is nothing, unlike with mental illness, that might cloud whether he is capable of evaluating his position and his desires.

[loyalsister]

14. Agoraphobia is a "locked in" mental condition

People with Agoraphobia are so terrified of being out and about they isolate themselves.

If it is appropriate for a person who is physically "locked" why not someone who is mentally locked in?

It is relevant because as soon as suicide is mentioned by a person who is walking around and considered "normal" the first instinct for anyone who hears that is to assume they are depressed and that maybe the depression should be addressed and treated.

Given that, why is it not possible that this individual is experiencing treatable depression?

If we acknowledge that possibility and still consider this act appropriate why would it not apply to any suicidal person with treatable depression, particularly if it is related to agoraphobia?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. The two are not remotely comparable

This 'locked in' means the most significant muscle the man can voluntarily move is in his eye. An agoraphobic still has control of their body, and their home.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Firstly, agoraphobia is generally treatable, as is depression

Secondly, agoraphobia is NOTHING like this man's condition. A person with severe agoraphobia may be confined to the house, but they can still move, talk, eat, attend to their own physical needs. This condition is extreme. Most disabilities are partial (e.g. you can't walk but can still get about in a wheelchair, and talk and eat); or, if they are anything like as extreme as this man's condition, are accompanied by a loss of awareness so that they don't realize their predicament.

Even some people in this man's position would do anything to live, but I don't think you should be forced to. This is a new situation because a generation ago, people with such severe strokes would not have lived long anyway. The powers of modern medicine to prolong life have brought about their own dilemmas.

[HeiressofBickworth]

11. "When death is inevitable and clearly soon imminent, disagree with interference"

You clearly have not had the experience of watching a loved one go through this. I did. A very dear friend had ALS. It was an aggressive type that in the end would seize up her breathing muscles and cause her to choke to death. She had already lost the use of her mouth, she couldn't swallow or speak, was fed through a tube directly into her stomach. She lived in Holland where they are more enlightened about this. There were procedures she had to go through, but in the end, she had a dignified death in a hospital with her children by her side, aided by a doctor. She did not strangle to death but was gently ushered into it.

I disagree with your statement "When death is inevitable and clearly soon imminent, disagree with interference" as it depends on how that death is going to happen. Sometimes interference is the most merciful.

[loyalsister]

13. I worded that badly

I meant when death is imminent and certain I believe it is appropriate to (not interfere) leave those decisions entirely to the person and their loved ones.

I am more uncomfortable about going down a slippery slope that opens a door for medically assited suicide in a wide range of situations.

[HeiressofBickworth]

15. In my friend's case

she needed two doctors to certify that she was within 6 months of death before she could obtain the medically assisted suicide. They also had to be sure she was not being coerced into it.

In live in the Seattle area -- Washington adopted a Death with Dignity law a couple of years ago. I hope I never need it, but I find it a small comfort to know that it's there should I ever find my self in my friend's situation. There are safeguards built into the law. Medically assisted suicide is not like waking up one day and deciding that it is your last day on earth. Like my friend, doctors need to certify that death is certain and within a particular frame of time. I don't see that the law is any kind of a slippery slope but is a humane and merciful way to end certain suffering.

[dmallind]

17. Why not let the only person whose opinion matters decide?

He understands his own situation and can surely tell the difference between it and agoraphobia. Partly no doubt because, while still inside a snug hospital room, he remains physically unable to move and live a life that is satisfying to him.

He isn't, from this article at least, trying to speak for other paralyzed people, only himself. Why insult him by speaking for him and suggesting he doesn't understand his own mind, when all he can do is contemplate; or that he has not considered this statement enough, when every letter he uses takes a long time and much concentration?

Whose life is it? The disabled community's? Injured people's throughout the nation? His doctor's. No. Just his.

[loyalsister]

18. Do you agree then,

that person who has a mental illness should be given the same benefit of the doubt? Or in that case is it worthwhile to question their desire to commit suicide?

My reservations are related to the broader issue that can not be ignored when this issue comes to the forefront.

I can see in 15 years or so my relatives saying, 'Bill's depressed, he can't work, but hey, assisted suicide is an option.' I struggle to see in practice a system of assisted suicide that will guarantee vulnerable people don't end up being assisted quite aggressively. In other words, I'm not sure that so-called informed consent will work in the way advocates of assisted suicide claim."

...... It may seem rather bleak to suspect one's own relatives of exerting insidious influence of that sort – albeit dressed up as the most altruistic concern; but unfortunately the country does not consist entirely of families happy to pay whatever it takes to keep an elderly relative going even if that means that their hoped-for inheritance is swallowed up by that same relative's care-home fees.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-why-the-disabled-fear-assisted-suicide-2297116.html

Complicated financial conditions apply to people who are much younger. Home health care costs for people who have CP or spinal cord injuries can be quite a strain on a family budget. State funding is not always available. Do we develop an idea that it is simply responsible for disabled people to commit suicide because they require some extra resources?


My reservations come from the contemplations of people who fear what may happen to the perception other people have of them. I think it is a legitimate concern. State budgeting in many states are notorious for cutting resources for people who have disabilities. We are very aware of the fact that we are devalued even by well meaning people. I am not trying to start an argument. Only pointing out reasons why some people are cautious about this issue.

At what point does empathy become a decision that is "obvious" to outsiders?

[dmallind]

19. The only questioning should be done by doctors and next of kin

But the only final decision should (not does, I know) rest with the patient as long he is capable of making decisions. Mental illness only rarely deprives people of that ability. Even (most of) the mentally ill should be granted control of their own life. I just don't understand the drive to make people choose between living a life, their own one life, that they have deemed worthless, and taking usually violent and always risky steps to end it themselves when perfectly peaceful and certain methods are an Rx away. Not your specific drive by the way - a generic point.

[loyalsister]

20. I guess you have never seen the ups, downs, and in betweens of a bipolar disorder

I have more than one close friend who is extremely intelligent and very productive during his days when he is not at one extreme or another. He has been hospitalized after more than one suicide attempt and found his way out of the hole that drove him to it.
Or talked to a teenager who wants to kill himself. People going to work\school living their daily lives and suicidal. Are you seriously suggesting that is simply a personal choice and these are people who should simply be written off?

[dmallind]

23. I guess you don't have clue one of what I've "seen"

Do all people who see the same things agree?

Am I suggesting that people, almost any people, who reach the considered opinion that their life is intolerable, can explain why if it isn't blindingly obvious as in this case, and maintain that decision for some reasonable period of time after repeated reflection, be allowed to die without pain, risk to others, or interference from passive-aggressive guilt trips?


Yes. Hell yes. Fuck yes. A thousand times yes.

If you've "seen" so much, has it really never included a life not worth living to the only person who should matter - the one living it? The one you seem to want to remove from control of their one true inalienable possession - their own life? Trust me I've seen that, and I could never stomach inflicting that torture on somebody else.

[loyalsister]

24. My concerns are not personal

They are about setting precedents and further devaluing people who are constantly fighting to stay alive. If this conversation reveals anything it is that there are people who have to convince some that their lives are worth living. It is a waste of money for personal attendants. Where would those freaks go anyway? Of course they want to kill themselves. They would be better off if they had died in the first place.

I guess your libertarian ideas could reduce the need for mental health services and some of those freaks could be easily pressured to believe their life sucks too much to live. That should have been Ron Paul's answer about the kid in the coma. "By not waking up his body is saying he doesn't want to live. Let's save some money."

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. You really are behaving appallingly now

There is nothing 'libertarian' about what dmallind has said. And neither has he, or anyone else, put this in terms of money to look after people, whatever their state. This is about whether someone who has clear mental command, but whose physical illness is such that they cannot possibly take the step of ending their own life, can ask someone to do it, as untraumatically as possible, for them.

No-one is devaluing people who are fighting to stay alive. I cannot see where the hell you get "there are people who have to convince some that their lives are worth living"; no-one is saying that any category of people have lives not worth living. This is about individuals with extreme physical problems who have decided they don't want their own life to continue.

Your strawman arguments are getting ridiculous and offensive. If you can't argue without insulting DUers, then don't argue at all.

[loyalsister]

26. If you would like confirmation of my points

go to a state that is making cuts to services for people with disabilities. They cut oxygen. It was only available in hospitals and nursing homes until a court shot it down.
Understanding and caring that living with a disability is expensive, particularly if one wants to maintain a high quality of life. It always comes down to money. Whether the concern is that they are draining resources from society as a whole or if it is just an added financial burden for the families. In my state, people with disabilities have to go to the legislature every single year to beg for funding that will provide the attendants that get them out of bed in the morning. On the house floor, a legislator claimed that "daily bread" was being taken from tax payers.

One terrible assumption we have to work with is that people with disabilities are "better off" in nursing homes. That is a step towards the reduced quality of life people pretend to understand. It's one thing to have an untreatable completely debilitating illness
YET the people who have potential to have an improved quality of life are very often treated exactly the same because nurses, orderlies, and yes family members think they must have a terrible existence because of their condition rather than being unhappy with their environment.

These are experiences of real people I know. Including some who have been asked "would you rather have died in that car accident?" "have you wanted to commit suicide?" - as they are making the most of the life they live. It is not well understood by people who have not explored the broad range of experiences of people with various disabilities. And it is especially not understood that there are endless fights for money that will allow people to enjoy life. Mental health services also require a great deal of funding. It is true that if assisted suicide were approved for people in a depressed state, it would save the state and federal governments money. Whether that is a part of one's motivation or not, they should recognize the potential abuse this could lead to when conservatives are screaming for budget cuts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Your problems and concerns are nothing to do with this case

which is about whether helping someone who is not depressed, and has clearly expressed a wish to die would result in prosecution. Your argument is, at best, a 'slippery slope' one which involves a series of suppositions for which there is no evidence; but it really looks like someone who is determined to prevent suicide by anyone, ever.

[KamaAina]

29. Say it, sister!

Opposition to assisted suicide is in no way the sole province of the religious wrong. Marilyn Golden, a friend who is at least as progressive as I am, will take it from here:

http://www.dredf.org/assisted_suicide/97-DREDF-website-version.html

Assisted suicide strikes many people as a cause to support, when they first hear about it. But upon closer inspection, there are many reasons why legalization is a serious mistake. Supporters focus on superficial issues of choice and self-determination. It is crucial to look deeper. Legalizing assisted suicide would not increase choice and self-determination, despite the assertions of its proponents. It would actually augment real dangers that negate genuine choice and control.

The disability community bases its opposition on the dangers to people with disabilities and the devaluation of disabled peoples' lives that result from assisted suicide. Further, this opposition stems from the secrecy in which assisted suicide operates today, in states where it is legal; the lack of robust oversight and the absence of investigation of abuse; the reality of who uses it; the dangers of legalization to further erode the quality of the U.S. health care system; and its potential for other significant harms.

After addressing common misunderstandings, we examine fear and bias toward disability, and the deadly interaction of assisted suicide and our profit-driven health care system. Second, we review the practice of assisted suicide in Oregon, the first U.S. state to legalize it, and debunk the merits of the so-called Oregon model. In detailing significant problems with Oregon's supposed safeguards, we raise some of its real dangers, particularly for people with depression and other psychiatric disabilities. Third and finally, we explore the ways that so-called "narrow" assisted suicide proposals can easily expand. This article focuses primarily on conditions in the United States, though much of our discussion also applies to other countries.

It is imperative to distinguish personal wishes from the significant dangers to society of legalizing assisted suicide as public policy. The legalization of assisted suicide has many harmful consequences.

[loyalsister]

30. Thank you!

That's a good, comprehensive article. The knee jerk social libertarian position is understandable in a sense. But I think we should be willing to examine how this all connects to money in the end.

A newspaper profile revealed that Barbara Coombs Lee [author of Measure 16, Oregon's assisted suicide initiative] was "closely involved in passage" of Oregon's health plan. Oregon's governor John Kitzhaber, a former emergency room physician and the chief architect of this health care rationing system, admitted—or perhaps he was boasting—that "only three states spend less per person on health care for the poor." The British magazine The Economist praised Kitzhaber "for rationing health care in the face of limited resources" and observed that "Oregon no longer pays for such treatments as 'efforts to fight the final stages of AIDS.'" Politicians' and bureaucrats' implementation of these cost-cutting measures while they willingly fund assisted suicide amounted to a declaration of class warfare against the poor, many of whom are sick or disabled.
..... the Oregon Health Plan sent Wagner a letter saying the Plan would not cover the beneficial chemotherapy treatment "but ... it would cover ... doctor-assisted suicide."

[Snake Alchemist]

21. He should have assistance just not from a doctor. Maybe some sort of designated government official.

nt

[truthisfreedom]

22. It's too much to think about.

My heart goes out to him.

[queenjane]

28. Whatever happened to be allowed to make your own decisions about your own life??

From birth control, to abortion, to number of sex partners, to ending your own life, all the way down to what color you can paint your house or how many xmas lights you can string on your bushes, we are no longer allowed to make our own damned decisons for ourselves.

Note that I am not talking about things that can or do harm others. I am talking about your own body, your own health, your own life. Everyone (Dem and Repub) seems to feel they can interject their personal political agendas into the private decisions of others.

I hope this man is granted the assistance and release he desires. I would be grateful if I knew I had that option, should I need it.