High Court rejects Tony Nicklinson's plea to allow doctors to end his life

When does the right to life become a right to die?

Today the High Court rejected Tony Nicklinson's plea to allow doctors to end his life. Nicklinson is not terminally ill, but for the past seven years he has been "locked in" as a result of a stroke: fully conscious, but immobile, able to communicate only by blinking. With the full support of his family, he had asked the court to extend the defence of necessity to cover doctors who acceded to his request. As the law stands, any doctor who carried out his earnest request might have found themselves facing a charge of murder. He also hoped to establish that his human right to a private life (under Article 8 of the European Convention) included the right to choose the manner of his death.

The result isn't a surprise. Nor will it be the end of the matter: the family had already announced their intention to appeal should the decision go against them. In the end, though, even the highest court in the land might well conclude, as this hearing did, that such a profound change in the law could only be made by act of Parliament. "It is not for the court to decide," said Lord Justice Toulson this afternoon, "whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place." Yet there seems little immediate prospect of legislation. Despite decades of debate and the fact that public opinion has long been sympathetic to euthanasia (provided that there are strict safeguards to protect the vulnerable) Parliament has so far proved reluctant to act.

Instead, the law finds itself in a position of moral incoherence. On the one hand, it refuses to draw distinctions that most normal people would regard as obvious. As the Lord Chief Justice made clear in 2010, upholding the murder conviction of a mother who ended the life of her severely brain-damaged son, the law "does not distinguish between murder committed for malevolent reasons and murder motivated by familial love." A law that puts a loving mother in the same legal category as Ian Huntley, sentencing both to life imprisonment (albeit with different tariffs), is clearly deficient. Nor can the Crown Prosecution Service be relied upon to act with common sense and compassion in such cases. 

At the same time, the law draws distinctions that are, in moral terms, pedantic. For example, it makes what is taken to be a significant distinction between actively ending someone's life (for example, by administering a lethal cocktail of drugs) and passively doing so by withdrawing nutrition. The latter has, since the Tony Bland case twenty years ago, become an almost standard procedure in cases where a patient is assessed to be in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The difference means almost nothing to the person concerned - who is unable to express a preference either way. Tony Nicklinson himself could choose to refuse nutrition. This would condemn him to a slow and agonising death, and increase the suffering of his wife and daughters who would be forced to look on helplessly. But it would be legally OK. Death by lethal drugs would be quicker, painless and dignified. But it would be murder. 

If Tony Nicklinson were a dog, it would not merely be legal to end his suffering, it would be a criminal offence not to do so. The RSPCA routinely prosecutes pet-owners who cannot bear to see their beloved animals put down. Perhaps the dog, if it could talk, would express a wish for its suffering to end; perhaps it would cling to life. Society assumes, though, that to be merciful and compassionate is to put the animal to sleep. Why should a fully conscious and intelligent adult human being be treated with less humanity and compassion than a dog? 

The usual answer is that the law exists to protect vulnerable people who might otherwise feel under pressure to choose death so as not to be a "burden" on their loved ones. But their must be other, less cruel, ways of protecting the vulnerable. And the current law risks imposing another sort of burden on the families of people in Tony Nicklinson's position: a stark choice of watching someone you love in agony and asking to die, or acceding to their request at the risk of being convicted of assisted suicide or even murder. 

It's also sometimes argued that to allow profoundly disabled people the right to euthanasia would undermine the value of the lives of all people with similar disabilities. This must be nonsense. To respect human life is to respect more than the continuance of bodily functions: it is to afford respect and dignity to individuals, and that means allowing people to make decisions about their own lives. Including the ultimate decision to end it. 

A civilised and compassionate society will allow, even encourage, people to make the most of life whatever physical or mental disabilities they may have. We will shortly see at the Paralympics a triumphant demonstration of the fact that disability is no bar to achievement. It's possible to have even Tony Nicklinson's level of disability and lead a positive and worthwhile, even successful, life: just look at Stephen Hawking. But forcing someone to live against their will, as a demonstration of society's attachment to the sanctity of life, is neither civilised nor compassionate.

There is, in fact, no real conflict between the sanctity of life and the right of someone in Tony Nicklinson's position to end it. If human life has any special meaning over and above any other sort of life, it is because human beings are capable of self-reflection, of mental anguish, of conscious suffering, which includes the knowledge that one's suffering will end only in death. In such a case as Tony Nicklinson's, such human characteristics only add to the predicament in which he finds himself. For him, the right to die has become indistinguishable from the right to life.

What such a situation reflects, perhaps, is a continuing desire on the part of the law (or of its defenders) to want to punish suicide. A nominally secular society continues to see suicide not as a viable option - even an affirmation of life, because it is an affirmation of autonomy - but as a moral and personal failure, an admission of defeat. This was the mentality that for centuries refused suicides burial in consecrated ground. It is an attitude that ultimately limits human dignity, while at the same time pretending to exult it.

 

Tony Nicklinson's wife Jane comforts him as he reacts to the High Court decision. Photograph: Getty Images
Belief, disbelief and beyond belief
Getty
Show Hide image

Labour’s best general election bet is Keir Starmer

The shadow secretary for Brexit has the heart of a Remainer - but head of a pragmatic politician in Brexit Britain. 

In a different election, the shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer might have been written off as too quiet a man. Instead - as he set out his plans to scrap the Brexit white paper and offer EU citizens reassurance on “Day One” in the grand hall of the Institute of Civil Engineers - the audience burst into spontaneous applause. 

For voters now torn between their loyalty to Labour and Remain, Starmer is a reassuring figure. Although he says he respects the Brexit vote, the former director of public prosecutions is instinctively in favour of collaborating with Europe. He even wedges phrases like “regulatory alignment” into his speeches. When a journalist asked about the practicality of giving EU citizens right to remain before UK citizens abroad have received similar promises, he retorted: “The way you just described it is to use people as bargaining chips… We would not do that.”

He is also clear about the need for Parliament to vote on a Brexit deal in the autumn of 2018, for a transitional agreement to replace the cliff edge, and for membership of the single market and customs union to be back on the table. When pressed on the option of a second referendum, he said: “The whole point of trying to involve Parliament in the process is that when we get to the final vote, Parliament has had its say.” His main argument against a second referendum idea is that it doesn’t compare like with like, if a transitional deal is already in place. For Remainers, that doesn't sound like a blanket veto of #EUref2. 

Could Leave voters in the provinces warm to the London MP for Holborn and St Pancras? The answer seems to be no – The Daily Express, voice of the blue passport brigade, branded his speech “a plot”. But Starmer is at least respectful of the Brexit vote, as it stands. His speech was introduced by Jenny Chapman, MP for Darlington, who berated Westminster for their attitude to Leave voters, and declared: “I would not be standing here if the Labour Party were in anyway attempting to block Brexit.” Yes, Labour supporters who voted Leave may prefer a Brexiteer like Kate Hoey to Starmer,  but he's in the shadow Cabinet and she's on a boat with Nigel Farage. 

Then there’s the fact Starmer has done his homework. His argument is coherent. His speech was peppered with references to “businesses I spoke to”. He has travelled around the country. He accepts that Brexit means changing freedom of movement rules. Unlike Clive Lewis, often talked about as another leadership contender, he did not resign but voted for the Article 50 Bill. He is one of the rare shadow cabinet members before June 2016 who rejoined the front bench. This also matters as far as Labour members are concerned – a March poll found they disapproved of the way Labour has handled Brexit, but remain loyal to Jeremy Corbyn. 

Finally, for those voters who, like Brenda, reacted to news of a general election by complaining "Not ANOTHER one", Starmer has some of the same appeal as Theresa May - he seems competent and grown-up. While EU regulation may be intensely fascinating to Brexiteers and Brussels correspondents, I suspect that by 2019 most of the British public's overwhelming reaction to Brexit will be boredom. Starmer's willingness to step up to the job matters. 

Starmer may not have the grassroots touch of the Labour leader, nor the charisma of backbench dissidents like Chuka Umunna, but the party should make him the de facto face of the campaign.  In the hysterics of a Brexit election, a quiet man may be just what Labour needs.

What did Keir Starmer say? The key points of his speech

  • An immediate guarantee that all EU nationals currently living in the UK will see no change in their legal status as a result of Brexit, while seeking reciprocal measures for UK citizens in the EU. 
  • Replacing the Tories’ Great Repeal Bill with an EU Rights and Protections Bill which fully protects consumer, worker and environmental rights.
  • A replacement White Paper with a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union. 
  • The devolution of any new powers that are transferred back from Brussels should go straight to the relevant devolved body, whether regional government in England or the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  • Parliament should be fully involved in the Brexit deal, and MPs should be able to vote on the deal in autumn 2018.
  • A commitment to seek to negotiate strong transitional arrangements when leaving the EU and to ensure there is no cliff-edge for the UK economy. 
  • An acceptance that freedom of movement will end with leaving the EU, but a commitment to prioritise jobs and economy in the negotiations.

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496