Tony Nicklinson denied the right to die - please sign his petition

[Tarka the Duck]

Tony Nicklinson, the “locked-in syndrome” sufferer, broke down in tears on live television as it was confirmed that he had lost his legal battle to be allowed to die.

Mr Nicklinson, 58, was left almost completely paralysed and unable to speak but fully conscious after a stroke on holiday in Greece seven years ago.

Mr Nicklinson’s wife Jane said he would appeal the High Court decision and was ultimately prepared to starve himself to death.
His dramatic appearance came as the High Court rejected two separate attempts to change the law on assisted suicide.
Mr Nicklinson and a man who can be named only as Martin, who also suffers from locked-in syndrome, both challenged the current law.
Martin also voiced “anger and frustration” and accused the court of prolonging his “tortuous situation”.

In a lengthy judgment Lord justice Toulson, sitting with Mr Justice Royce and Mrs Justice Macur, said the two men’s cases were “deeply moving” but said that allowing them to end their lives would have implications “far beyond” their cases.

The former businessman communicates through a specially adapted computer which records blinks and tiny head movements.
He asked the court in June to grant immunity from prosecution for murder for a doctor who would give him a fatal dose of painkillers to end his life in Britain.


<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?embedCode=F5bmZuNToY_K8ZNUzXK2x8lNGHdiZI 4s&width=620&deepLinkEmbedCode=F5bmZuNToY_K8ZNUzXK2x8lNGHdiZI4s&height=349&video_pcode=RvbGU6Z74XE_a3bj4QwRGByhq9h2"></script>
The Telegraph newspaper is running a poll on whether people should have control over their own death. The results are currently:
YES 70.78%
NO 29.22%

full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9480227/Tony-Nicklinson-breaks-down-as-High-Court-rejects-his-right-to-die-plea.html

This is what it's all about...
Dr Antony Lempert, chair of the Secular Medical Forum, said: “Today’s sad verdict leaves Tony Nicklinson with a terrible choice.
“Because other people regard his tortured life as somehow sacred, or are fearful of societal consequences, he is forced to endure his suffering or take desperate measures to end it.
“With no hope now of a quick release, he must choose between this torment and the torment of allowing his family to stand by and watch him starve himself to death.
“The law is failing people both ends up. People who do not want to die are not protected from unscrupulous relatives whose motives for ending their life will only be questioned when the patient is already dead.
Those people, like Tony, who tell us quite reasonably why they would like to end their unbearable misery are prevented from doing so.”


How much longer can the necessary change in law be postponed?
How many more people are going to be denied this basic right?

If you feel this subject is important, please sign the petition started by Jan, Tony Nicklinson's wife at

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/tony-nicklinson-s-right-to-die-change-the-law?utm_campaign=share_button_modal&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=26335600

[Tony]

This is truly a sad case.
The only thing we actually own is this body...it's ours!

No one has the right to tell another what to do with it, we have the right to die in our own time. We can advise others but we cannot live their suffering for them. Of course there are varying degrees of suffering, and tolerance to that suffering, and there maybe help to get through this suffering. But when someone can no longer help themselves, and is in constant pain, plus no end to it, or is going to die anyway, compassion for that person should not be denied.

There then comes the question of who will help that person to end this life. That will depend on the understanding of those around the suffering person.

Who are these moralists, who suspect that we will all become murderers to suffering people? Is it religious beliefs? Are the religious wanting people to hate them? Have politicians and the legal system totally without compassion? We can send people to die in wars, allow police to hit people over the head with batons, give people drugs and food that makes them ill. We can spend billions on useless entertainments, like the Olympics, sport, celebrities and the useless media, but will not look after the old, sick and dying.

It is disgraceful and obscene!

From my understanding, the only people that should not consider suicide are advanced spiritual practitioners, as every experience counts. However this is still a personal matter, and in no way can anyone else tell them what to do.

THIS GOVERNMENT AND LAW SYSTEM IS TOTALLY AMORAL. PLUS NOW WE HAVE WAYS OF KEEPING PEOPLE ALIVE WITH UNNATURAL "HEALTH CARE".

Q. Do you enjoy people suffering?

[taurad]

the Justice principles, to my understanding, were founded based on divine beliefs of creation...same setup in every society, be that polytheistic and/or monotheistic...

the only difference in atheistic / social-Darwinism societies, is that, the divine judgment of what life constitutes, who gives and takes it, the dictator himself decides for it...Dictator is self-proclaimed GOD in these society...same song, slightly different lyrics

in religious societies of any kind, the freedom to decide to pull your own plug is a direct threat to that divine code...

i don't see the divine Institutions on Earth ready to give up the most powerful, backbone principle of their whole dogma...

it's the saddest thing in the universe

THIS IS A PURE VIOLATION OF THE WORST KIND OF A CREATURE'S PRIVACY, not people willingly opening a facebook account, and complain about privacy.

[Tarka the Duck]

You've hit the nail on the head there, Taurad. It is the influence of the church that is preventing a informed debate over assisted suicide.

This is part of an editorial from today's Telegraph, and proves the immense bias and blinkered viewpoint held by the powers in the church...a viewpoint that puts their own personal belief system above compassion for another human being, and respect for their wish to control their own life.

Unbelievable. How dare they? :nono:

The current law is framed to provide protection for the vulnerable while allowing individual freedom commensurate with that goal. The central question is: would a change in the law, or in its interpretation, place vulnerable people at greater risk than at present?
The answer, clearly, is ‘yes’.

Already, many people speak loosely of others living useless or futile lives, as if a person’s worth can be gauged on the basis of his or her activity.
A compassionate and caring society will affirm the intrinsic value of the lives of each of its members, regardless of their perceived contribution to society or their perceived ‘quality of life’. A caring society will seek to assure every individual that his or her life is of value, even if the individual deems his or her life to be valueless.

Rev Dr Brendan McCarthy is the National Adviser on medical ethics and health and social care policy to the Church of England's Archbishops' Council.

While I'm here...I've brought up the subject of assisted suicide a few times on PA, and each time the thread just slips away...can anyone tell me why? Why does no one want to talk about this difficult subject?

We spend hours reading and writing about sensational subjects, but when it comes to a matter of life and death - literally - everyone is silent. WHY?! :confused:

[Corncrake]

I think this is a tragedy - someone who is clearly not being manipulated, is fully compos mentis AND able to communicate his wishes is not allowed to end his miserable life. My best friend's father 'existed' for 12 years after suffering a series of strokes - at his funeral the vicar said that he had in fact died 12 years earlier. Yet, my aunt, after suffering a heart attack in her 80's begged her GP to not resuscitate her should it happen again. She was put on minimal medication and a few days later had another attack and died. Sad for us to lose her but we had known for years that she wanted to go.

[ghostrider]

what the hell , what kind of life would you have if you were paralized and could not speak ?? He should be allowed to go home, back to spirit. earth is a heavy burden enough , but he can't go anywhere , he can't speak, he'll never jump , run , swim , hike, laugh, sing, or speak his mind. Too bad he not a banker giving away money , the trilateral commission would off him quickly. let him go where he wants to go. funny the one thing he can do , the high/LOW court wont let him... he can't walk, he can't sing, he can't run , oh and he can't kill himself , he must continue to suffer. freakin madness.

[Tony]

Professor John Saunders, chair of the Ethics Committee for the Royal College of Physicians, said the case was about a right to kill not about a right to die.


This 'man' actually says that this is a rare case, then goes on to say, that this will affect everyone!

[Meesh]

I was a Hospice volunteer for nearly 10 years. Patients received massive doses of morphine when their pain or agitation was intolerable. This is also common practice in most hospitals as death approaches. A side effect of morphine at these dosages is that it hastens death. So it isn't as if it isn't already done. You shouldn't need the permission of the medical establishment (read "corporation") or religious groups ( read "corporations") in order to make this decision.

[9eagle9]

Why is he petitioning a court for the right to die?

We put our hands in the court systems and now our deaths?

If he wants to die he can find the means to die without asking permission from the controllers.

Can people get a clue how stupid the controllers are ?

"O my god the world is overpopulated, the sheep all need to go!!<<<>>>> No you can't die! We won't let you!

The man needs to take his life and death in his own hands.

So do we all.

[Tarka the Duck]

Thanks for the responses.

@Meesh
Yes, I have no doubt that this happens now for people who are terminally ill and are in chronic pain. But for those who do not experience this pain as part of the degeneration of their body, and are therefore not receiving pain killers, is there any equivalent of morphine that you know of?

@9eagle9
The problem for people who suffer total paralysis is that they can't physically do as you say - take his life and death into his own hands. If only they could.
They have to rely on another person "facilitating" and this accomplice then runs the risk of prosecution for murder/manslaughter.

He launched a legal action seeking court declarations that a doctor could intervene to end his "indignity" and have a "common law defence of necessity" against any murder charge.

That is the whole point of this issue: what does someone do when they are physically unable to carry out their own wish to die?

[Nickolai]

Dear 9eagle9,

Any advises how to leave this life painlessly?

Thanks

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Dearest Tarka,

I have signed and posted on facebook!

Thanks

Kolya the Nickolai

[Tarka the Duck]

Thank you so much for doing that, Nickolai - I had hoped that more people would have felt strongly enough this issue to sign the petition too.

This is an issue that could affect any one of us - directly or indirectly - at any time, but it seems many just don't want to talk about it. Oh well...:rolleyes:

[Pam]

o.

THIS GOVERNMENT AND LAW SYSTEM IS TOTALLY AMORAL. PLUS NOW WE HAVE WAYS OF KEEPING PEOPLE ALIVE WITH UNNATURAL "HEALTH CARE".

Q. Do you enjoy people suffering?[/QUOTE]

Thanks Pie n eal, I was a nurse in a dialysis setting for many years and was so saddened to see multitudes of people kept alive just because we have the ability, or because a relative wants them to live..(there are many reasons for this: guilt, financial-to continue benefits, religious) Some would be begging to die while on treatment.No expense was denied to keep these people alive as long as was possible. There were others that did not want to be on dialysis but out of fear of going to hell would continue. I am not saying this is true of every one on dialysis or other life sustaining treatment but believe me there are many. Perhaps some day the government lackeys that promote this will be in the same position and I hope they live a long,long, time pammy

[Tony]

Thanks Pie n eal, I was a nurse in a dialysis setting for many years and was so saddened to see multitudes of people kept alive just because we have the ability, or because a relative wants them to live..(there are many reasons for this: guilt, financial-to continue benefits, religious) Some would be begging to die while on treatment.No expense was denied to keep these people alive as long as was possible. There were others that did not want to be on dialysis but out of fear of going to hell would continue. I am not saying this is true of every one on dialysis or other life sustaining treatment but believe me there are many. Perhaps some day the government lackeys that promote this will be in the same position and I hope they live a long,long, time pamm


Hello Pemmy
My wife and I spent two years caring for her mother who had Motor Neurone-Disease, she was totally paralysed. We know what he is going through. The authorities just played dumb, and hadn't a clue what is was like to care for someone in that condition. They gave us 1,000 of pounds worth useless equipment which eased their conscience.
The Motor Neurone-Disease association didn't want people to know how bad the disease could get.

What a frustrating world it is,
Tony

[Corncrake]

I watched my mother die a painful death from cancer - she was in a hospice and when I asked the staff to do something to ease her suffering they told me they had given her all the drugs they could. So my mother lay there for days in real distress before mercifully slipping into a coma and dying. Whom did that benefit? I don't want to list all the bad experiences I have had - it is too distressing and I am sure everyone has been there at some stage of their life - but when someone is terminally ill and in great pain who does it help to keep them alive other than the drug companies? Then, I read of near death experiences when people suddenly go into remission or recover at the last minute and I wonder if I am wrong.

[scarletfire]

I'm an ICU/ER nurse and although I believe I do contribute to the greater good overall there are some people who are frail and elderly w/ every diagnosis invented who come in and are "worked up" with expensive and painful tests, treated for whatever the disease/symptom is deemed the root cause, and then shipped to a nursing home for "rehab." Most folks (like my grandparents) don't last long once in the nursing home but this whole system ensures that everybody in the healthcare game profits as much as possible. This is all at the expense of the dignity of the patient. I could give a million examples but I don't have the energy as I just got off a night shift and have some "heavy" situations running around in my brain.

One story that gives me pause ; non verbal nursing home patient comes into an ER, unstable VS, bedridden, whole 9 yards. Then, all of a sudden this guy, who is NONVERBAL looks up and says "I know you, I know alot of folks around oak corner" as if he was totally lucid. Then dies, just like that. Oak corner is a nickname given to the turnoff to get to my family's land and it had only been purchased by my family a year prior. Come to find out this guy owned the neighboring property before he became incompetent 5 years prior. There was no way he saw a familiar face from our family home as a neighbor....physically, I kinda think he wasn't in his body during those last month's of suffering in the nursing home and was roaming around in spirit and came to his old stomping grounds. Sometimes I see people on life support who seem totally lifeless, alive physically only by modern medicine advances (ventilators, feeding tubes, etc.) and I hope that their spirit/soul whatever has broke free of the body and is roaming around until they come together again for the final transition. That is what this experience has lead me to believe.

[Heartsong]

Oregon's Right to Die law:

The law (from Wikipedia)

Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed, by a physician, with a terminal illness that will kill the patient within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Exercise of the option under this law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider who has moral objections may refuse to participate.

The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient, is not entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, is not the patient's physician, and is not employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient's ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient's request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation.

The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute's restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy."
Analysis of impact

From the act's passage to 2008, 401 patients used the act, representing an estimated 19.4 deaths per 10,000 total deaths in the same time period.[4] The average patient age was 70, with 81.8 percent of patients suffering from malignant neoplasms (cancer).[5] All but five of the 401 deaths involved a lethal medication of either secobarbital or pentobarbital; of those patients ingesting medicine received under the act, 95.1% experienced no complications.

An independent study published in the October 2007 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics reports there was "no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations."[6]

Also:

ASHLAND, ORE. (Christian Science Monitor)

Ten years after Oregonians passed a controversial ballot measure allowing physicians to help some patients take their own lives, the records show that what critics feared has apparently not happened. No rush to end one's life, no people flocking here from other states, no pressure from family, doctors, and insurance companies to commit suicide.

Relatively few people opt to end their own lives by taking a doctor-prescribed drug, according to recently-released figures for 2006: 46 deaths last year, 292 overall since the law went into effect – about one-tenth of 1 percent of those diagnosed with terminal illnesses in Oregon.

Instead, palliative and hospice care have increased markedly here because the law helped raise awareness about caring for terminally ill patients. As a result, Oregon ranks among the best in the nation in end-of-life care. This means more people are looked after at home with the emotional and spiritual support of their families rather than spending their last days in a hospital.

"The practice has settled into a nice, safe, responsible, conservative record of aid-in-dying practice in the state," says Barbara Combs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices, a Denver-based advocacy group that supports physician-assisted suicide. "Once again, very, very few Oregonians have exercised their option under the law."

Although Oregon remains the only state to allow physician-assisted suicide, California is also moving in that direction, and the topic is being debated in Arizona, Vermont, and Washington. A bill sponsored by California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D) and other lawmakers patterns Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act."

The Oregon law specifically prohibits "lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia." But it does allow mentally competent adults who declare their intentions in writing, and have been diagnosed as terminally ill, to take a doctor- prescribed lethal drug themselves, orally, after a waiting period. The California proposal includes what supporters say are additional safeguards: requiring doctors to give patients a written summary of alternatives, and directing that those not under hospice care receive a psychological evaluation.

According to the Field Poll, 70 percent of all adults in California (including 59 percent of Republicans) believe that mentally competent patients diagnosed as incurably ill should have the right to ask for and get life-ending medication. Gallup and other national polls show that a majority of Americans favor the procedure, although it depends how the question is asked – particularly whether the word "suicide" is used.

[Meesh]

I watched my mother die a painful death from cancer - she was in a hospice and when I asked the staff to do something to ease her suffering they told me they had given her all the drugs they could. So my mother lay there for days in real distress before mercifully slipping into a coma and dying. Whom did that benefit? I don't want to list all the bad experiences I have had - it is too distressing and I am sure everyone has been there at some stage of their life - but when someone is terminally ill and in great pain who does it help to keep them alive other than the drug companies? Then, I read of near death experiences when people suddenly go into remission or recover at the last minute and I wonder if I am wrong.

WOW! This should have never happened with Hospice. So sorry!

[ThePythonicCow]

One story that gives me pause ; non verbal nursing home patient comes into an ER, unstable VS, bedridden, whole 9 yards. Then, all of a sudden this guy, who is NONVERBAL looks up and says "I know you, I know alot of folks around oak corner" as if he was totally lucid. Then dies, just like that. Oak corner is a nickname given to the turnoff to get to my family's land and it had only been purchased by my family a year prior. Come to find out this guy owned the neighboring property before he became incompetent 5 years prior. There was no way he saw a familiar face from our family home as a neighbor....physically, I kinda think he wasn't in his body during those last month's of suffering in the nursing home and was roaming around in spirit and came to his old stomping grounds.
wow :).

Keep up the good work - thanks!

[9eagle9]

Belladonna and someone with a pair.

[Tarka the Duck]

Belladonna and someone with a pair.

Yes, if you or I were in this situation, there is nothing we wouldn't do to carry out out the wishes of our loved one regardless of consequences.
We nursed my mum who was in the same state as Tony Nicklinson for 2 years -unable to speak or move through contracting motor neurone disease (ALS) and if she had asked us to assist her in dying, we wouldn't have hesitated. We spoke about this with her, and I know it was a comfort for her to know that if her suffering became unbearable, there was a way out.

BUT this appeal is on behalf of those who do not "have a pair". This is not about us.
We can't expect everyone to possess the necessary courage. Or even to have friends or family to ask for such help.
This is about physician assisted suicide.

There needs to be a change in the law.

Please sign the petition!

[9eagle9]

If we are waiting for 'them' to let us know its okay to die, we are defeating the purpose of our death.

Okay I can agree the man does not have any means of ending his own life, unless he stops taking in water or nutrients, which he can stop doing, so then it is left up to those who will do it for him.

I didn't not sign the petition but I'm very aware of the precedent we are reinforcing here. There is a deeper underlying matter that actually does effect us all.

[Tarka the Duck]

Sorry, 9 - I'm not quite getting the point of your argument, other than saying it's within the powers of "those" to do it for him. Yes, he has a family - what of those who are alone in the world and don't have anyone to ask?

May I ask why you didn't sign his petition? And what is the precedent? And what do you see as the underlying matter?

Meanwhile, as we discuss, people continue to be denied the ultimate freedom of choice.

[Maia Gabrial]

I won't sign the petition because that would be admitting that the authorities have the right over Nicklinson's own sovereignty and free will. They don't have to live with the diminished life as he does. They don't have to pay the outrageous bills to take care of him. HE has the right to decide what's right for himself and HE will have to account for his decisions and actions before GOD and no one else....

[Tarka the Duck]

Thanks for your thoughts Maia Gabriel. Could I ask you for a little clarification?

Isn't the whole point of signing the petition about taking a stance to reclaim individual sovereignty and free will?

And they DO pay the bills - we have the NHS here in the UK that pays for everything. Equipment, care, medication and treatment is all funded by the state.

You say he has the right to decide...maybe you have misunderstood what he is trying to do here. His appeal is centred around the fact that he is saying he has the right to decide :confused:

For me, signing that petition was a way to tell Tony Nicklinson that I care about him as an individual - not just about a cause or an impersonal principle.

[Maia Gabrial]

I meant that the petition is like BEGGING THEM to let him choose what he wants for himself. Sorry, if I didn't say what I meant. I'm so frustrated by all the invasions of govt in our lives. I'm at the point where I want to scream. Our lives are OURS not theirs... They should have NO SAY in this....

Another point I was trying to make is that in the US, we don't have national healthcare. A person is SOL if they don't have insurance. And if they do, sooner or later it runs out....Again SOL....

[Möbius]

As far as I'm concerned the Nursing Home Industry is corrupt to the core. It is run by either government or privately owned businesses. The private owners and the Pharmaceutical companies both benefit by keeping the patient alive as long as possible for the main aim of asset stripping the patient’s estate for profit whereas the government run homes just benefit the Pharmaceutical Industry by using tax payers money to pay for the prolonged death.

Private homes business plan: Charge >£1,000 per week, Pump them full of life prolonging drugs using cheap badly trained foreign Nurses to administer the drugs and to look after the patient – Outcome: Patient unknowingly being raped of assets; Care home getting nice fat profits, Drug companies getting nice fat profit all coming from the patients estate….

The government run home’s plan: Charge the tax payer >1,000 per week, Pump them full of life prolonging drugs using cheap badly trained foreign Nurses to administer the drugs and to look after the patient – Outcome: Drug companies getting nice fat profits paid for by the tax payer….

Allowing people to die in a dignified way affects their business plan and their profits. Judges will never rule in favour of a dignified death when they are all part of the same “Keep them alive for as long as possible and strip all of their assets for profit” team.

Mobius

[Tarka the Duck]

Thanks for the thoughts, Möbius - I concur from my limited experience. I think it's most peoe have a deep fear of ending up in one of these places...especially if they have no family nearby to keep an eye on things. But could we please not follow this track on this particular thread as it's not relevant in Tony Nicklinson's case as he lives at home and is cared for by his family.

@Maia Gabriel
Thank you for the further exlanation, and I see now where you are coming from. I know just what you mean, and I feel the same frustration...:mmph:

But. At the risk of flogging a dead horse here :o if I was in Tony's situation, to hear people giving the reason for not supporting his appeal as not wanting to be seen to beg "them" for our basic human rights would, to be honest, make me cry.

Yes, we all need to fight this oppression. That this the big picture - but we can also work at the other end of the scale, on the coal face itself. This is one way of doing that, and Tony is in the unenviable, horrific and rare position of being able to have his voice heard out there.

I still can't get my head around those who feel their matters of principle are more important than offering their support to a suffering individual RIGHT NOW!

[Tony]

The problem is people do not have the ability to care or empathise. They may go through the act of caring, but they have the pleasure of going home to relax.
Caring and empathising is not a financial question, it is spiritual. Either loving thy neighbour as thy self, or more then thy self.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

We have the pleasure of mouthing off on a forum about what we think, and then turn off the computer. Very few people care about others, but they do care about what 'they' think!

Let's be honest, we are all stuck in this pyramid of illusions.

[Marsila]

Tarkka this is such a tough subject that a lot will 'run away' from, as I wish there was a way to end his suffering not his life.

It is tragic that the only way to end his suffering is to end his life. I wish there was another solution so that his last day on Earth in this form, is one he enjoyed not one he couldn't wait to get out of.

Having said all that, i had a friend who passed away from leukemia two weeks ago. He died soon after his chemotherapy started, and as saddened as i was i found myself saying 'thank god he didn't go through chemo and all the suffering that would cause to his body and mind'

Tony Nicklinson has the right to decided his own fate, without permission from others. But us who aren't suffering also should look for any possible way to at least lessen his suffering until he gets what he wants. If signing a petition for a moral boost at least is a way....so be it.

[shijo]

im at a loss for words about this matter K athie, i will go sign the petition. Regards Shijo.

[Tarka the Duck]

im at a loss for words about this matter K athie, i will go sign the petition. Regards Shijo.

Exactly, Shijo! Thank you for simplifying this issue! K

[Tarka the Duck]

Tony Nicklinson died today, from pneumonia. Wow. He is free.

Tony Nicklinson, who failed in his high court bid to be allowed to end his life with the help of a doctor, has died just six days later, his lawyers said. He had been refusing food since the verdict, but contracted pneumonia and "went downhill quickly", they said.

Wiltshire police said they were not involved and it is believed the death was from natural causes.

In a brief statement, Bindmans LLP said Nicklinson, from Melksham, Trowbridge, died on Wednesday morning at home.

"This is to notify you of the sad death of Tony Nicklinson at approximately 10am this morning," the law firm said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/22/tony-nicklinson-dies-right-to-die?newsfeed=true

[Corncrake]

How tragic for his family to watch him die like this - no food and then pneumonia. They knew it was his choice and must be relieved for him that it was fairly quick and is now all over but it still should not have had to happen this way. RIP Tony.

[nearing]

Starvation IS one way he had to control his death. Yes it most likely wasn't painless, but there are much more painful ways to go. He did the right thing because it's far better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission from the damn government.

I agree with 9eagle9.

I am glad his suffering is over.

[conk]

Starvation is a horrible death. RIP dear man, you are no longer locked in.

[Tarka the Duck]

Now Tony Nicklinson has obtained the freedom denied to him by outdated laws.

If anyone wishes to honour his courage and support his determination to change these archaic laws, you might like to have a look at the Dignity in Dying website. Tony's fight - and that of others in similar situations, will continue.

http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/

There is a proposal for a new bill on assisted dying to be put before parliament next year in the UK.

In reply to those who say to push for a change in law is tantamount to begging to those who hold the power...HELLO! Welcome to the "real" world! Like it or not, we all come under the laws of the country where we live. If we feel strongly that a particular law is wrong, outdated, unjust etc, one way to get that changed is to speak up. To fight. Because things CAN and DO change if enough people act - if I didn't believe that, I would give up.

By keeping quiet, you are condoning inaction and the status quo, regardless of the reasons you may offer. If you're happy with that, fine.

But my conscience doesn't allow me to keep quiet when I have been touched so deeply and personally by this issue.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Hope he liked Randy. this one is for you Tony.

VdM3NHDU7Mk


For those interested............. there is a book called............. Butterflies in a diving suit............, perhaps something you could give a read. Its Beautiful.
Vlinders in een duikerspak

[Tarka the Duck]

I truly hope that times they are a-changing…

The laws on assisted dying are "ridiculous" and "appalling", according to a newly promoted health minister.
Anna Soubry, who was appointed parliamentary under secretary at the Department of Health in this week's reshuffle, called for greater "honesty" about when prosecutions would be brought for helping relatives to die and said the legislation needed to evolve.
Her comments on euthanasia come after Tony Nicklinson, who had locked-in syndrome, died a week after he lost a court case to end his life with a doctor's help.
Soubry said: "You can't say to a doctor or a nurse you can kill this person," she told The Times. But she said that it was "appalling" that the terminally ill who needed help to end their lives had to go abroad. "I think it's ridiculous and appalling that people have to go abroad to end their life instead of being able to end their life at home," she said.
"The rules that we have about who we don't prosecute allow things to happen but there's a good argument that we should be a bit more honest about it."
Assisting someone to die can carry a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/08/law-assisted-dying-ridiculous-minister