I have just been watching the news and they were interviewing the wife with her husband who has locked in syndrome .

She looks very upset by the poor man was just sat there ( he can't do anything else)sobbing inconsolably :-(

It is just so cruel that he is so severely restricted that the only way he can now do it would be to starve himself :-( We don't even treat animals that badly do we , so terribly upsetting and sad for him and his family.

I was looking at this earlier, it looks so horrible. My great aunt had this happen and spent the last 2 years of her life in bed only able to use her eyes to communicate.  But who could you find to give the release he is asking for? It's a task with a huge burden.

Talking about it on The Wright Stuff now.. The judges were wrong, imagine being stuck in a body that can't move, you can't talk and the eye movement is the only thing you have to communicate.. I wonder if they can't get him to Switzerland?
That is no life being stuck on a box of your own body, criminals are treated better than this in prison...

Assisted suicide should be looked at Case by case.. To legalise it totally would be wrong but to get it to the courts and go through the whole case fully is right, bu as I said I feel te judges got this one wrong :-(

> I wonder if they can't get him to Switzerland

I don't think that would help :( In Switzerland you have to be able to administer the drugs yourself - he can't do this :(

Would it be the same in Holland and Belgium?

> That is no life being stuck on a box of your own body

This is not true for everyone and those that do still value their cerebral life, think of Stephen Hawkins, may feel the pressure of a culture that sees things in this way.
Human life is not the same as an animals.

Heartbreaking. I firmly believe this poor man should have been allowed his wish. A living hell I would say, for the vast majority of people.
I also wonder could they not go to Holland ?

> A living hell

Then that is what we need to look at, not ways of helping people end it. 
What about the deeply depressed?  They may feel their lives are living hell, should we assist them to end it?

>Would it be the same in Holland and Belgium?

Because he's a British subject resident in the UK, anyone taking him abroad anywhere would be guilty of assisting a suicide and would be liable to prosection on their return.

>What about the deeply depressed?  They may feel their lives are living hell, should we assist them to end it?

They don't need assistance, that's the point.

> They don't need assistance, that's the point.

We do what we can to protect them from themselves though.  We don't just walk past if someone is stood on a cliff top and just say it is his choice. 

Maybe not, but nor do we drag them from the edge and lock them in a cell, allowing them no say in what and when they eat, what channel TV they're put in front of, preventing them from scratching an itch, insisting someone else wipes their bottom etc, to prevent them trying another method.

Having previously worked on a spinal injuries unit and nursed severely tetraplegic patients, I can honestly say that I would have no desire to live my life that way, "being a floating head" as one patient described it.

Depression can treated - there is hope - so I don't think you can honestly compare the two...

I would say locked in syndrome is even more life changing than tetraplegia, since they are unable to even attempt to speak :-(

At the end of the day, it is all down to the individual and how they cope/feel about their illness.... it is a very grey area though... what constitutes a persons suffering so severe, that they should be legally allowed to have their life ended? I do believe locked in syndrome does fall into that category though...                                              

> but nor do we drag them from the edge and lock them in a cell, allowing them no say in what and when they eat, what channel TV they're put in front of, preventing them from scratching an itch, etc, to prevent them trying another method.

We shouldn't be doing that to anyone!  If this man can communicate that he wants to kill himself he can communicate other choices and whilst nobody can have everything thing they want it life it really ought to include such simple things as your describe there.
I strongly believe people value themselves as those around them value them and if disabled people feel so low that they wish to end their lives we should be looking at how much they and their carers are supported by our society rather than people just accepted theirs lives must be rotten.
My own, very personal experience is that when you receive good support life maintains its meaning.

> I can honestly say that I would have no desire to live my life that way

I'm sure you wouldn't, none of us would but that is a world of difference between that and accepting what we have and continuing to value our place in the world.

I wonder if any of you watched the Stoke Manderville drama last night?  Apart from being a jolly good drama it was interesting to see the attitudes of the time portrayed regarding even being wheelchair bound.  The attitudes of both patients and the wider world, even the medical community.

>We shouldn't be doing that to anyone!

But that is what's happening to this man, and many others like him.

>whilst nobody can have everything thing they want it life it really ought to include such simple things as your describe there.

You're quite right - it ought to. But in extreme cases it doesn't, and never will.

> But that is what's happening to this man

I don't seriously believe his carers do not allow him to chose what he eats or watch but if that is the case then it just confirms my point that it is down to the quality of care whether people cope with their disabilities or not.

I don't think it would matter to me what level of care I received if I had locked in syndrome, I too would rather be dead. A healthy, active mind, trapped in an entirely lifeless body - it's your worst nightmare, surely?
Perhaps if the judge could have been in Tony Nicklinson's shoes for just one day, there would have been a different outcome.

> I wonder if they can't get him to Switzerland?

He's said himself he doesn't want to go to Switzerland - his wife said 'why the hell should he have to go to another country to die in the middle of an industrial estate?' He should be able to die at home, was the gist.  I fully agree.

I get why the judge has ruled this way - concern over opening the floodgates for cases where assisted suicide might not be the best thing, and people might be pressurised - but in this one, specific, individual situation, I am absoultely heartbroken for the man and believe they ruled wrongly.  He is clearly well cared for, but to use his own word, his life is 'intolerable' and there is no cue for locked-in syndrome - his life will continue to be intolerable until he dies.

If he wishes that end to come sooner then he should be allowed to make that choice - we are all about freedom of choice in life, people should have control over their death as well if it's possible, and if the life they are living is hellish.

Was that the general attitude with the medical staff in your unit, Cavlover? 
I suggest you watch this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m1jqd/The_Best_of_Men/
and before you say these people could do a lot more the point is, at a time when lives were perhaps more physical, people thought their lives were over when struck by disability and society largely agreed with them.  It took a few people with vision and care to show the potential of disabled people to take part in life where others couldn't.
Today we have technology to help also.  If this man can communicate his desire to die he can communicate enough to be valued as a man and a father and be a valued member of his family.
As I say, I have personal experience within our family and that is the way it worked for us.

Having been in the position of caring for my husband whilst he was dying from a terminal illness I am firmly of the belief that it is everyone's right to decide when their life no longer has a quality they can live with - there is a huge difference between living and existing...... and for some merely existing is most certainly a fate worse than death.

Until that point in our lives where we had to live that nightmare I had never been in favour of euthanasia but like so many other circumstances in life one doesn't really fully understand how one feels or comprehends a situation until put in that position and as time wore on and with a huge decline in his quality of life he would have openly embraced the chance to leave this world behind. He suffered a painful disease but his pain was managed through drugs............. but only the physical pain........... the emotional pain and distress he suffered was dreadful to witness and there was no way to ease that pain. A man who was strong, independent and courageous was reduced to living a life I would not have wished upon anyone. He was greatly loved by us all but I couldn't give him the one thing he was desperate for which was to say enough was enough and to call an end to his "living" even though he had begged me to help him end it. I couldn't give him his final wish - not because I didn't want to nor because I didn't love him enough to help him but because we had two children whom I also love and who needed me as much as I needed them and I didn't have the courage to risk the consequences of helping him to leave it all behind.

I believe that people who know they are not going to survive a terminal condition should have the right to make their wishes known well in advance of the time when they are no longer capable of acting for themselves and if their wish is to be released from this world and their suffering then we should be able to respect their wishes and give them the peace they so desperately want and need. I find it very uncomfortable that we can choose to not have our loved ones resuscitated, to have nourishment withdrawn, to stop treatments etc - all of which will lead to  eventual death but we can't allow our loved ones to die before their body finally gives out. Why is it considered morally and ethically okay to withdraw the physical support a body needs to maintain life and in doing so ensure that death follows albeit not instantly but it isn't right to help that person to end their suffering by being given the means to slip into eternal peace?

>it just confirms my point that it is down to the quality of care whether people cope with their disabilities or not.

Imagine you have a sudden itch in the small of your back. It's driving you potty, yet you can't scratch it yourself and you can't communicate to anyone else exactly where it is.

He can communicate.

>I find it very uncomfortable that we can choose to not have our loved ones resuscitated, to have nourishment withdrawn, to stop treatments etc - all of which will lead to  eventual death but we can't allow our loved ones to die before their body finally gives out.

We're allowed to make them suffer a long-drawn painful death (and withdrawal of nutrition so that organs fail is painful) but not allowed to provide a desired gentle death; that is truly twisted.

> that is truly twisted.

They would not withdraw pain relief and the patient would probably be sedated unless they did not wish it.

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">>it just confirms my point that it is down to the quality of care whether people cope with their disabilities or not.

Quality of care can be fantastic - we couldn't have asked for better care than we had provided by our designated home visit hospice nurse nor the Marie Curie nurse both of whom enabled Steve to remain at home with us until the end as was his wish - but emotional care is very different and I think one reaches a point where the desire to leave it all behind far outweighs the desire to live. My Steve was a very strong and courageous man who spent eight years not believing that he wouldn't make it through despite having been given a terminal diagnosis right back at the beginning of his illness and had such a positive outlook that people who didn't know him well found it very hard to believe he was ill let alone that he was dying. It was only when he finally said "I can't do this anymore" that we knew he had reached his limit. Loss of privacy, loss of dignity and total dependance on others were all things he had dreaded and yet they were all guaranteed to be a part of his future existence.

Our hospice was brilliant and gave our whole family such great support but there came a point where we all knew that things were changing and that however great the care and love was Steve wasn't going to get any better, there were no more remissions to be had,  life had lost it's quality and the one thing he really wanted was something that wasn't within our power to give him. 

No replying to anyone in particular but did anyone see terry prachett programme chosing to die
Link here. http://vimeo.com/25239708
be warned he does go to dignitas with a patient so view at your own discretion, but i thought it was  very beautifully done & give a real insite to what there thoughts are before going through with it, alsso in canada now they allow assisted suicides,http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/06/15/f-assisted-suicide.html personally i think he should be granted his wish & be able to end his life at home with his family

Sorry my mistake 3 usa states allow not canada

Stooge I don't think the general attitude of the medical staff is of much relevance. It is how the suffering person feels, their wishes, beliefs and feelings.

" If this man can communicate his desire to die he can communicate enough to be valued as a man and a father and be a valued member of his family  ".

His family undoubtedly value him, of course, but it is how he feels that matters ultimately. He is the one living the hell.

> Loss of privacy, loss of dignity and total dependance on others were all things he had dreaded

Everyone dreads these things and I can see that when you have battled long and hard with a terminal illness you will reach a point when the battle is not worth the peace that beckons you but this man is not terminally ill, this is his life and I do not accept it has no potential for being a meaniful existance and I think this is why law is as it is.

"We're allowed to make them suffer a long-drawn painful death (and withdrawal of nutrition so that organs fail is painful) but not allowed to provide a desired gentle death; that is truly twisted."

Exactly. It makes no sense.  If someone allowed their dog to die a needless and painful, drawn out death, having refused to seek veterinary advice and have it pts, they would be prosecuted. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for humans!

True Stooge pain relief would not be withdrawn.To the contrary opiates often increased with the desired 'effect/outcome'....no questions asked.

> Stooge I don't think the general attitude of the medical staff is of much relevance.

I think it has enormous relevance.  So much of how we feel about ourselves is a reflection of how we are regarded by those around us.

> His family undoubtedly value him

I hope you are right but I do not think it is something we can always regard as "undoubted".  I am sure being in the medical profession you will have come across people whose families do seem to have other priorities in life than caring for their own and this leads me to another concern of allowing this in law.  As we are influenced by how people regard us I don't know how we protect people who are led into these feeling either deliberately or neglectfully by family or carers.

> True Stooge pain relief would not be withdrawn.To the contrary opiates often increased with the desired 'effect/outcome'....no questions asked.

It would generally be a controlled drug used so not likely to be "no questions" if not used appropriately :)

http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/news/use-of-morphine/

The point I was making was that even if his family do value him, his suffering is so great, that I don't think it has any bearing on the case. The man has no quality of life - by his own admission - the most humane outcome for him would be to allow him to die a painless death. He is of completely sound mind, there is no danger here of his family influencing him in any way, but I do see where you are coming from Stooge and this is why each and every case should be judged on individual merit. I remain convinced they got it wrong here.

Yes Stooge and as all of us who work within the NHS know-all controlled drugs are used 'appropriately'.

> The man has no quality of life

No quality?  He can communicate and he has a sound mind.  These are two valuable qualities for a start.

> He is of completely sound mind, there is no danger here of his family influencing him in any way

All of us in sound mind are influenced by how others see us and treat us.

> Yes Stooge and as all of us who work within the NHS know-all controlled drugs are used 'appropriately'.

Would you like to elaborate as I don't see that the checks introduced following Shipman allow for much misuse at all even if people desired it.

He can communicate by blinking only. Wonderful. And the fact that he is of sound mind is what makes his case (imo) particularly harrowing. I am sure he would prefer not to have such a sharp mind, given his utterly dire physical state :-(

Yes, we are all influenced by how others see and treat us. Tony could be treated like royalty but he would still want to die. Nothing anyone else can do to change the every day torture he has to endure.

Sorry Stooge but I must have missed the 'misuse' part in my response.

I think I have an idea what celtic lad is getting at here, although I haven't worked in the nhs for many years now.

I do remember terminally ill patients being placed on morphine pump, with the dose increased gradually (dose determined by medical, not nursing staff of course!) until said patients would ultimately become unconscious and so on.....

> Sorry Stooge but I must have missed the 'misuse' part in my response.

Fair enough, I must have misunderstood you.  What did you mean?

Cavlover, I am quite astonished by some of your remarks.

>He can communicate by blinking only. Wonderful

> I do remember terminally ill patients being placed on morphine pump, with the dose increased gradually (dose determined by medical, not nursing staff of course!) until said patients would ultimately become unconscious and so on.....

Have you read the link I posted.  Clearly you haven't worked in the NHS for a long time which may explain some of the other views expressed.

No, I haven't - I made a point of saying this!!

No, I didn't read the link.

But my views are just that (but I am not alone with them) - my views. Sorry, I don't share your opinion that being able to communicate by blinking only is something sacred.

One of the qualities of being a good nurse is empathy. I can empathise with this poor man's tragic situation and I respect his wish for his torture to end :-(

We wouldn't allow our dogs to suffer like he is, but hey if its a fellow human being, its all good!

"Because other people regard his tortured life as sacred, or are fearful of societal consequences, he is forced to endure his suffering or take desperate measures to end it" Michael Irwin,  ex UN Medical Director

> this is his life and I do not accept it has no potential for being a meaniful existance and I think this is why law is as it is.

Shift the emphasis - this is his life.  He finds it intolerable, unbearable, and has expressed a very strong, deep total wish to die.  He is, as you have said, of sound mind - therefore he should get to make that choice.

I think it already is a meaningful existence because he's got us all debating and questioning this important subject and he's raised the profile of it - but beyond that, it is still his life.

Nikita, this is what I have been trying to get across throughout this thread, the emphasis should be on his wishes.
Stooge, your views are all well and good, but it isn't about you is it?

Yes Mbro I did watch it and it was a very well thought through and well presented on a subject that is so emotive.

To me it should be down to individual choice with measures in place to measure quality of life , mental wellness and that not outside influences are effecting the decision. If a person is allowed to change their sex based on a series of measures then I think the right to die should hold the same if not more importance to people as it affects so many people. The poor families are so terribly affected as well because of seeing a loved one go thorough so much physical and mental pain.

> I don't share your opinion that being able to communicate by blinking only is something sacred.
>

What has sacred got to do with it?  It is simply that communication is communication and this man has it.  It doesn't matter how, many people cannot speak.

>I can empathise with this poor man's tragic situation and I respect his wish for his torture to end

I have no doubt you can what surprises me is that you cannot see that if his carers see his situation as tragic, and the other views you have expressed, and that he has no potential then little wonder that he does not value his life.

Apology accepted Stooge.

> Stooge, your views are all well and good, but it isn't about you is it?

No, it is about him and everyone like him :)