Terminally ill man brings review over assisted dying law in 'fight for choice'

[Deleted]

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-07-17/n...ht-for-choice/

A man who is terminally ill with motor neurone disease is to bring his latest attempt to change the law on assisted dying to the High Court.

Retired college lecturer Noel Conway is bringing a judicial review over the current law at a five-day hearing starting on Monday.

The 67-year-old, from Shrewsbury, was diagnosed with the disease in November 2014 and is not expected to live beyond 12 months.

When he has less than six months to live and retains the mental capacity to make the decision, he wishes to be able to enlist assistance to bring about a "peaceful and dignified" death.

He wants a declaration that the Suicide Act 1961 is incompatible with Article 8, which relates to respect for private and family life, and Article 14, which protects from discrimination.

Mr Conway, who is supported by Dignity in Dying, has already been to the Court of Appeal to win the right for what he calls his "fight for choice at the end of life" to proceed.

He said: "I am more determined than ever to continue.

"I have the support of my loved ones and many thousands of others behind me; people who have donated over £90,000 towards my legal costs and sent heart-warming messages of encouragement to me and my family.

"I have lived my whole life on my own terms, in control of the choices and decisions I make.

"Why then, when I am facing my final months, should these rights be stripped away from me, leaving me at the mercy of a cruel illness?

"I know I am going to die anyway, but how and when should be up to me.

"To have the option of an assisted death available in this country would provide me and countless others with great reassurance and comfort.

"It would allow me to decide when I am ready to go, rather than be forced into a premature death by travelling to Dignitas at great emotional and financial cost, or to suffer a traumatic, drawn-out death at home."

The case follows that brought by Tony Nicklinson, who suffered from paralysis after a stroke.

Mr Conway's case differs in that he has a terminal illness and his legal team is setting out strict criteria and clear potential safeguards to protect the vulnerable from any abuse of the system.

The Nicklinson case was ultimately dismissed in 2014 by the Supreme Court, which said it was important that Parliament debated the issues before any decision was made by the courts.

After debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, Parliament decided, at least for the moment, not to provide for legislative exceptions to the 1961 Act.

Mr Conway will not attend the five-day hearing in London.

It is expected that a ruling will not be given until the autumn.

I hope he wins

[Grimbold21]

In before Shinra with some nonsense

[Dr Assbandit]

People who defend the "sanctity of life" even when the patient has no quality of life and are in excruciating pain, are usually those who have never spent more than a few minutes in the hospital.

Saying these people are miserable is an understatement, it's torture. Short of miraculous cures that don't exist, certain conditions are a death sentence and the time left is spent making the patient as comfortable as possible.

If they are lucid enough to give informed consent for when their quality of life will eventually be nonexistent, they should be allowed to save themselves the agony, strain on finances for the family, and most of all their dignity on how they want to die.

[kail]

Government would have to pay for my 24 hour surveillance if they ever deny my assisted suicide due to a terminal disease.

[NicoWolf]

Its things like this that always make me scratch my head at this country. People are constantly crying out for freedom from and for whatever hot button issue is fresh off the fires of mainstream media, but fail to see the importance of personal autonomy; the very nature of individual freedom itself.

If I am in pain with no hope of recovery, with no semblance of life that could be even remotely construed as normal, why should anyone, of any political affiliation, beyond myself have the right to decide how I conduct my life or determine its worth beyond the value I ascribe to it?

No, scratch that; why should anyone have the right to dictate the value of my life or my ability to self-determinate my own existence, regardless of my physical being? Just because my life doesn't follow your preconceived life script, it should not afford anyone the right to determine for myself what path my life takes or how long of a path that must be.

[KyrtF]

Its things like this that always make me scratch my head at this country. People are constantly crying out for freedom from and for whatever hot button issue is fresh off the fires of mainstream media, but fail to see the importance of personal autonomy; the very nature of individual freedom itself.

If I am in pain with no hope of recovery, with no semblance of life that could be even remotely construed as normal, why should anyone, of any political affiliation, beyond myself have the right to decide how I conduct my life or determine its worth beyond the value I ascribe to it?

No, scratch that; why should anyone have the right to dictate the value of my life or my ability to self-determinate my own existence, regardless of my physical being? Just because my life doesn't follow your preconceived life script, it should not afford anyone the right to determine for myself what path my life takes or how long of a path that must be.

And what about the patient who wants life but is pressured into suicide by those who want an inheritance?

You can't treat these cases in isolation. You need to look at everything and consider how such freedoms can be abused. And in this vase, they would be.

[Underverse]

And what about the patient who wants life but is pressured into suicide by those who want an inheritance?

You can't treat these cases in isolation. You need to look at everything and consider how such freedoms can be abused. And in this vase, they would be.

An easy solution would be requiring a medical diagnosis from a third party.

[NicoWolf]

And what about the patient who wants death but is pressured into staying alive by those who can't cope with their own selfishness and learn that they one day have to live without them?

You can't treat these cases in isolation. You need to look at everything and consider how such freedoms can be abused. And in this case, they would be.

It's almost as if any situation has the potential for these kinds of things, but should we err on the side of others and their feelings or on those of the individual and their desires...

Furthermore, we're really just sidestepping the real issue; personal responsibility.

If I choose to do anything, it is ultimately my choice. Not my mother, my father, my friends; it's all on me. I shoot someone in the head and murder them because my best friend said it'd be a good idea, it is still my decision to act upon it. Just as it's yours to make your own choices. It's up to you to stay informed about the actions you would take.

Should we take steps in policy to ensure people will make the most informed decisions possible? Yes. Can we force them to make the right choice? No. Because it's not ours to make. It's what they deem best for themselves, even if you don't like it.

[KyrtF]

An easy solution would be requiring a medical diagnosis from a third party.

Well no....because the problem is that people might feel an obligation to commit suicide. Or that others would take advantage if the situation.

Who do you protect? The weak and vulnerable? Or...in this case...a man able to make his own decisions but simply doesn't want to be the one to pull the trigger?

If the man wants to commit suicide I'm not going to stop him. But neither should anyone feel pressured into making this choice nor, given history, should this choice be available.

How many could Shipman have talked into suicide for example?

[Deleted]

How many could Shipman have talked into suicide for example?

Couldn't he have done that anyway? This doesn't prevent that but it doesn't cause it either. He could have convinced his patients that they need to take 12 of whatever pill and watched them die that way if he wanted. This isn't the same thing.

By its' nature this is a medical question that will be handled by medical personnel on the frontlines when it happens. People can always try to convince another to kill themselves but this way at least one impartial person is involved in the process and can ensure this is what the patient wants.

As someone facing a future that will likely involve incapacitating pain and surgeries, I'm all for this. Give people the means to decide and act for themselves with dignity.