Right-to-die families ‘devastated’ as judges tell politicians to decide

The family of Tony Nicklinson last night said they would keep on fighting his case, saying he was “devastated and heartbroken” at the ruling yesterday.

A second victim referred to as “Martin”, 47, who cannot be identified, also lost his challenge to the legal ban on assisted dying.

Three judges sitting in London referred to their “terrible predicament” and described their cases as “deeply moving and tragic”.

Mr Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, was left paralysed by a catastrophic stroke while on a business trip to Athens in 2005.

The court heard he had been told his existence of “pure torture” could continue – if a doctor could not help end it – for another 20 years or more.

But the judges unanimously agreed it would be wrong for the court to depart from the long-established legal position that “voluntary euthanasia is murder, however understandable the motives may be”.

Doctors and solicitors who encouraged or assisted another person to commit suicide were “at real risk of prosecution”.

Refusing the stricken men judicial review, the judges ruled the current law did not breach human rights and it was for Parliament, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.

Any changes would need “the most carefully structured safeguards which only Parliament can deliver”.

Mr Nicklinson’s wife, Jane – standing by her weeping husband’s side last night– described the decision as “one-sided”, adding: “You can see from Tony’s reaction he’s absolutely heartbroken.”

His family, wife Jane, 56, and their daughters Lauren, 24, and Beth, 23, who all support his decision, now plan to appeal and hope they will be able to organise a hearing before the end of the year.

Mr Nicklinson, described as a “very active and outgoing” man before the stroke, can now communicate only by blinking or with limited head movement.

His lawyer Paul Bowen QC had stressed he was not asking the High Court to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide as he accepted that, while he would welcome such a change, it was a matter for Parliament. But in the absence of statutory regulation, he was entitled to “remedy” from the court.

Although he could not attend the hearings, Mr Nicklinson had sent an email which was read out by Mr Bowen: “I have wanted my life to end since 2007, so it is not a passing whim.”

In a statement, issued by his solicitors, Bindmans LLP, Mr Nicklinson said after the ruling: “I am devastated by the court’s decision. I am saddened that the law wants to condemn me to a life of increasing indignity and misery.”

Asked what would happen if the appeal fails, his wife said: “Tony either has to carry on like this until he dies from natural causes or by starving himself.”

She added: “We always knew it was a big ask but we always hoped the judges would see sense, but clearly they haven’t.”

Martin, who also suffered a massive stroke, in August 2008, is unable to speak and is entirely dependent on others whom he relies on for constant care. He had said he wished to be allowed a “dignified suicide”.

In a statement released by his lawyer, he said: “I feel even more angry and frustrated now, having had this court tell me that I cannot receive professional help to take control of how I might end my own life. My life following my stroke is undignified, distressing and intolerable.”

The judges’ decision was welcomed by some.

Professor John Saunders, chairman of the Royal College of Physicians ethics committee, said: “The Royal College of Physicians does not support a change in the law on assisted dying. It remains illegal for doctors to intentionally and deliberately terminate the life of someone who is not terminally ill.

“A survey of RCP fellows and members in 2006 showed that doctors were not in favour of a change in the law to allow them to do this. A change in the law would also have severe implications for the way society views disabled people.”

Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC Pro-Life, said: “Compassion and solidarity are the humane and caring responses to locked-in syndrome.

“To legalise killing of those who are suffering would adversely affect many, many people.”

Mr Nicklinson’s daughter Lauren said the family will keep fighting and rejected the argument of pro-life campaigners, saying her father had a life only in the biological sense of the word.

“Dad hasn’t got a life – his life consists of being washed by strangers, undignified moments watching the world go by around him,” she said. “Life should be about quality and happiness, not just for the sake of it.”