We hear a lot about “rights” these days. I would argue that save in very rare circumstances where the very safety of society is in peril, every man or woman has the right to live, but more than that, the right to live in dignity. I do not mean by that the “right” to have more than enough, or be protected from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that will inevitably buffet us all, or to be protected from folly, failure and accident or poverty. That would be naive, and would misunderstand the nature of the Universe. But an innocent man should not be treated with cruelty, inhumanity, or stripped of his dignity.

I would argue that Tony Nicklinson is an innocent man who is being treated in an inhumane way, albeit from the best of motives. So is “Martin”. Tony Nicklinson and Martin applied to the High Court seeking in essence a declaration that any person who assisted them in passing on from this life would be immune from a charge of murder.

The cases are tragic. Both gentlemen have suffered massive strokes which have utterly incapacitated their motor functions but left them intellectually unimpaired. The results, ironically compounded by the ability of modern medical science to keep them alive, are awful. I quote from the judgment handed down in the High Court this week:

“Put simply, the claimants suffer from catastrophic physical disabilities but their mental processes are unimpaired in the sense that they are fully conscious of their predicament. They suffer from “locked in syndrome”. Both have determined that they wish to die with dignity and without further suffering but their condition makes them incapable of ending their own lives. Neither is terminally ill and they face the prospect of living for many years.

I will refer to the claimants as Martin and Tony. Martin (which is not his real name) understandably wishes to preserve his privacy and the court has made an anonymity order. Tony’s case has attracted a lot of public interest because he has taken part in public debate with the help of his wife, Mrs. Nicklinson, and their daughters. As Mrs. Nicklinson has said to the media, whatever the outcome of his case, there will be no winners. Either way, there is no happy ending in sight.”

The consequences for both these gentlemen are tragic. Each is a prisoner of their own body which has become a living tomb…

Martin is 47 years old. He lives with his wife and his wife’s daughter. In August 2008 he suffered a brain stem stroke. This has left him virtually unable to move. He cannot speak. He can communicate only through small movements of his head and eyes and, very slowly, by using a special computer that can detect where on a screen he is looking.

He is totally dependant on others for every aspect of his life. He lives in an adapted room in his family home. He spends almost all of his time in bed, although he can be taken out of the house. His care is provided by his wife…and by full-time carers provided by his local NHS Primary Care Trust.

Martin is fed by people putting food into his mouth. He is able to swallow. His medication goes through a tube through his abdominal wall into his stomach. He wears a convene (a sheath over his penis, attached to a tube, into which he urinates). He defecates into special underwear. Adjoining the room in which he lives, he has a specially adapted bathroom in which he can be washed.

He is, it is understood, not likely to die of natural causes in the near future.

Martin has a strong, settled and reasoned wish to end his life. He loves his family, and enjoys spending time with them, and he likes to read. But he finds his life and his condition following his stroke to be undignified, distressing and intolerable. He does not wish to go on living like this. And, because he finds his current life unbearable, he wishes to end his life as soon as possible….

Tony’s day presently consists of writing his memoirs and watching TV. In the morning two carers come to get him out of bed. They shower him, get him dressed and put him for a short time on a cycling machine. He is then given breakfast and placed in a wheelchair. He spends the morning writing and the afternoon watching TV. At 4pm two carers come to transfer him from the wheelchair to an armchair. At 10.30pm a carer helps Mrs. Nicklinson to undress him, wash him and make him ready for bed, where he remains until 8.30am the following day. He has a night time carer to move him, which happens usually 3 or 4 times per night. Recently he took part in the making of a TV documentary which was broadcast on the eve of the hearing. The members of the court watched it.

In a statement he has summarised his condition in this way:

“My life can be summed up as dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable. …it is misery created by the accumulation of lots of things which are minor in themselves but, taken together, ruin what’s left of my life. Things like…constant dribbling; having to be hoisted everywhere; loss of independence, …particularly toileting and washing, in fact all bodily functions (by far the hardest thing to get used to); having to forgo favourite foods; … having to wait until 10.30 to go to the toilet…in extreme circumstances I have gone in the chair, and have sat there until the carers arrived at the normal time”

A full copy of the transcript of the Judgment can be found heree: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/2381.html

And very moving interview with Tony can be found here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fkw53

Both Tony and Martin wish to die. They have made clear, intentional and entirely rational decisions. But the problem is that they cannot take their own lives because they are unable to move. Someone would have to help them. And on the present state of the law that would be unlawful, and quite possibly murder.

As I understand it Tony and Martin invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, and argued that as an incidence of their human rights, they had given their own particular circumstances the right to not be prevented by the State from undergoing voluntary euthanasia, because self determination and dignity were core values of Human Rights case law, and they were being denied both.

In the event, the panel of three judges felt unable to give Tony and Martin the assurances they sought. The legal arguments surrounding assisted suicide are complex, but British law has always set its face against suicide – and for understandable ethical reasons. In short, the Court declined to make any such ruling, holding that this went far beyond and previous interpretation of the Convention. Such a radical argument was a matter for Parliament.

I understand both men are deeply upset by the decision, but it was never going to work. There is a constitutional limit as to how far judge made law can go, and this is an ethical and moral step too far for the courts. Raccoon readers are on the whole intelligent and free thinking, and we can all recognize the potential dangers of voluntary euthanasia. But the problem is that medical science can extend life far beyond what was once considered possible but cannot at the same time assure any quality of life. In the case of Tony and Martin that has the consequence of their living an interminably miserable and – in their eyes – undignified existence. A living hell. There is another point which makes the situation doubly unfortunate and illogical. It is pretty much an open secret that in the latter stages of their care patients with for example terminal cancer are routinely over medicated to do more than temporarily ease their pain, and often rightly so. That is not an option for Tony and Martin. Their only option would be self starvation, and that is not an option which I regard as acceptable in a supposedly civilised society.

To my mind, these gentlemen should be allowed to pass on and find whatever peace awaits us, and do so in the care and love of their families and in their homes. It cannot be beyond the wit of man –or even Parliament – to devise a system which ethically allows for these two gentlemen to be relieved of their intolerable circumstances. Under strict controls yes, but a compassionate and humane solution must be found. It is time for Parliament to act on this matter.

Pendle Witches

On a lighter note (!) this weekend marks the 400^th anniversary of the trial of the Pendle Witches. I have “borrowed” this from the excellent Wikipedia piece concerning the matter:

“The trials of the Pendle witches in 1612 are among the most famous witch trials in English history, and some of the best recorded of the 17th century. The twelve accused lived in the area around Pendle Hill in Lancashire, and were charged with the murders of ten people by the use of witchcraft. All but two were tried at Lancaster Assizes on 18–19 August 1612, along with the Samlesbury witches and others, in a series of trials that have become known as the Lancashire witch trials. One was tried at York Assizes on 27 July 1612, and another died in prison. Of the eleven who went to trial – nine women and two men – ten were found guilty and executed by hanging; one was found not guilty.

The trials were unusual for England at that time in two respects: the official publication of the proceedings by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts, in his The Wonderfull Discoverie of Witches in the Countie of Lancaster, and in the number of witches hanged together: ten at Lancaster and one at York. It has been estimated that all of the English witch trials between the early 15th and early 18th centuries resulted in fewer than 500 executions; this series of trials accounts for more than two per cent of that total.”

The full piece can be found here:

https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-sunday-ramble-voluntary-euthanasia-and-the-law/%22

There also is a very interesting web site devoted to the episode here http://www.pendlewitches.co.uk/

On this one can read, amongst other matters, Thomas Potts’s descriptions of the various accused, including this of Elizabeth Southerns, also known as “Demdike”:

“She was a very old woman, about the age of four-score years, and had been a witch for fifty years. She dwelt in the Forest of Pendle, a vast place, fit for her profession: What she committed in her time, no man knows. Thus lived she securely for many years, brought up her own children, instructed her grand-children, and took great care and pains to bring them up to be witches. She was a general agent for the Devil in all these parts: no man escaped her, or her furies, that ever gave them any occasion of offence, or denied them anything they stood need of: And certain it is, no man near them, was secure or free from danger.”

It has to be said that to this day Pendle is a strange and forbidding place. My one limited experience of the place was a visit on a wet autumn day some years ago, and what I chiefly remember is the ominous, almost threatening site of Pendle Hill looming in the background. The hysterically camp and over the top “Most Haunted” team did one of their special investigations there under the suitably dramatic title of “Pendle Hell!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qefs9QTVRtA

What fun! I loved Most Haunted. There is also a rather nice although very strong ale called Pendle Witches Brew:

 http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/109/340/

The anthropological significance and cause of “witch hunting” is an interesting topic. Witch hunting and witch purges reached a point of near hysteria in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe, with many thousands of mainly women reaching an unpleasant end. I recall from long gone student times how historians explain this in terms of paranoia induced by religious fanaticism, chaos of war and sexual repression. One of the biggest selling books of the late Medieval and what historians call the “Early Modern” period was The Malleus Maleficarum (Latin for “Hammer of the Witches”, or “Der Hexenhammer” as it was known in German). First published in 1487, it went through 20 editions and was a sort of “Witch Hunting For Dummies.” It told you everything you needed to know about how witches came to be, how to spot one and all the legal arguments to put before they were despatched.

https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-sunday-ramble-voluntary-euthanasia-and-the-law/%22

Some would say that it is a good thing we have moved on to more enlightened and somewhat less Draconian days. I would largely agree, but when some Tweets from the ludicrous Sally Bercow infected my Twitter time line this week, I did start to hanker for “Ye Goode Olde Days”….

And for Witch Trial Fun, follow the link to the classic sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTdDN_MRe64

And finally…

Eagle!

I found this. Having written on the terribly sad plight of Tony Nicklinson and “Martin”, if not an antidote, a counterpoint. For no reason that is material to this blog I happened across this youtube video of an eagle this week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGwKAMf09NQ&feature=fvwrel

I found it magnificent, awe inspiring and quite moving. I sent it to my friend, and she said it gave her peace. I hope you enjoy it, and it gives you peace too. And I hope that Tony and “Martin” find that peace too, in whatever awaits them. Perhaps one day in the not too distant future they will find themselves in whatever place awaits them, free to soar and swoop like eagles in recompense for their difficult circumstances now. I hope so. I wish them God’s Speed to that place.

Gildas the Monk 

Frankie August 22, 2012 at 21:27

R.I.P. Tony Nicklinson… The courts could not do it for you so… divine
intervention intercedes? Who knows.

Elena ‘andcart
August 21, 2012 at 19:27

I didn’t think that I wanted to comment on this, mainly because it
distresses me, that anyone should think that their life is so worthless, or
that they should expect the people who love them just to bump them off. I
would never do that to anyone that I love.
But it is such selfishness. “My
life is shit, so just kill me, will ya. I don’t care how you feel about
it.”

Everything that can be done to keep communication going is done for these
unfortunate people, and they are never alone, which is more than can be said
for other dissimilar but lonely people.

The Bible doesn’t interest me on this one. And Life is always an accident.
But I have never wished that I hadn’t been born. And I don’t suppose that they
did either.

Apart from that it is the thin end of the wedge. No One has the Right to
Die, and No One should give it to them. Or their caring families.
Sheesh,
the next thing you know my family will be bumping me off because I own a house
in France and they get all of the spondulicks By Law. None of your rotten old
British Capital Gains here.

Sorry, I don’t think it is at all funny. I am just so sad that anyone
should feel so worthless.

Single Acts of
Tyranny August 20, 2012 at 11:32

“To back to to Hitler, he was elected by popular vote and no doubt by some
high minded people”

No he wasn’t. Check wiki.

JohnB August 21, 2012 at 10:03

My apologies, I should have said: To go back to Hitler.

And regarding him perhaps I should more accurately have said: He came to
power by manipulating and riding on a wave of popular sentiment.

My main point is that our fallibility as humans requires checks and
balances that are more than our perceived current wisdom if we are to have
any hope of truth, honesty, liberty, honour and freedom.

We are all susceptible to acquiescing with the totalitarian and with
untruth if the methods of persuasion are subtle or/and forceful enough.

JohnB August 20, 2012 at 09:54

The wisdom that comes from meeting out fallibility as human beings and our
capacity to change with prevailing winds!
To back to to Hitler, he was
elected by popular vote and no doubt by some high minded people.
The
arrogance that assumes we have the ability to perceive the ultimate truth on
the basis of our own capability.

Single Acts of
Tyranny August 19, 2012 at 23:34

Three parties.

1. Victim ~ wants to die
2. Family ~ understand willing to help
3.
Medical staff ~ willing to prescribe painless drug

Villains

1. Religious people ~ seeking to impose their morality on those who do not
share it
2. Politicians ~ seeking to extend their power into death itself,
claiming it is they, not you that should decide if you die.
3. DPP ~ Making
random, subjective, intolrable pronouncements
4. People who compare this
with abortion, babies don’t ask to die, these people do. Please no conflation
of the two.

Dioclese August
19, 2012 at 23:27

‘Voluntary euthanasia’ is an oxymoron.

Euthanasia is when someone decides you should die. It’s murder, plain and
simple…

Assisted suicide is when you decide to die and ask someone to help you.

Therefore by definition euthanasia cannot be voluntary.

I think my strong views on this subject are well known to my regular
readers. The sooner the religious zealots move aside and allow people like
Tony to decide his own fate the better. I am sure the legal challenges will go
on for some time. Anyone who viewed Terry Pratchett’s documentary following a
suicide to Dignitas cannot fail to see that in the UK must change to something
similar to the Swiss model.

macheath August
19, 2012 at 22:10

Yet another fine post! I admit, this question is one that occasionally
bothers me through the darker watches of the night; I don’t know what the
answer is, but I fervently hope that a solution can be arrived at as soon as
possible, even if it is on a case-by-case basis and only on personal request
by the patient after the requisite hoops have been jumped through. We’ve a
long way to go before we can give our terminally ill fellow humans the
peaceful ending available to our family pets.

I wonder how much part religion plays, whether conscious or unconscious;
while there have been some truly shocking public remarks about divine
intention and suffering ‘being for a purpose’ from those opposed on religious
grounds, there seems to be some pervading notion of the sanctity of human life
underpinning much of the discussion from those without an obvious axe to
grind.

Meanwhile, on another topic, for those who prefer their information in
fictional form, may I recommend Robert Neill’s historical novel ‘Mist Over
Pendle’?

Single Acts of
Tyranny August 19, 2012 at 23:27

And if it’s witches you like, may I recommend our old friend Leg-Iron’s
“Jessica’s trap”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jessicas-Trap-Dr-Kevin-Hillman/dp/1615723706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345415163&sr=8-1

macheath August 21, 2012 at 13:04

Thanks for the idea – now kindled up and ready to go!

Chris Morriss
August 20, 2012 at 19:40

To which the musician, and now Cambridge academic, Carole Pegg, renamed
“Pissed over Mendle”.

macheath August 21, 2012 at 13:07

True, there’s certainly plenty of quaffing, mulling and wassailing goes
on along with the witch-finding.

WitteringsfromWitney August 19, 2012 at 21:18

Re: Tony & Martin: Simplistic maybe, but these two cases basically come
down to one question, namely whose life is it? Theirs or the politicians?

If it is an offence to assist someone to die, then consider: I have made a
written statement that should the occasion arise I do not wish to be
resuscitated. Are not then the medical staff attending me guilty of helping me
to die? I am unable to differentiate twixt that for which I have requested is
any different to that which Martin and Tony have requested.

Good article, by the way!

Brian August 19,
2012 at 22:59

Whose sovereignty? Personal, Parliamentary or Monarchical? Only when we
snatch back the sovereign power stolen from us all and make it clear that we
sign the cheques to run government will our lives be ours again.

As for the medical staff question, omission to act to save life is only a crime if there is a
legal duty and that duty is breached. The moot point is when a doctor
administers a drug to alleviate unbearable pain knowing that the dosage is
fatal. How would you define that?

Robert the
Biker August 20, 2012 at 07:33

“Thou must not kill
But need not strive
Officiously, to keep
alive”

Forget where it’s from, but it about covers my feelings.

Brian August
20, 2012 at 11:03

Arthur Clough. Sadly, the commandment has now changed to:

“Thow must not kill
Except by neglect and incompetence
In which
case we offer our sincere condolences to the family

Lessons Will Be Learned
Until the next time, we will forget
them”

Ancient + Tattered
Airman August 19, 2012 at 19:09

Had these poor souls made a living will before they were cruely stricken
down?
Would it cast a different light on the dilemma if they had done
so?

WitteringsfromWitney August 19, 2012 at 21:48

Interesting thought that had occurred to me too. If one can make a living
will to refuse treatment:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/Preparation/DG_10029429

then surely one can make the same decision should one reach the
unfortunate stage that Tony and Martin have?

Just a thought…….

Brian August 19,
2012 at 16:53

Gildas,

Thank you for another excellent ramble. I think the present situation
whereby assisting a suicide is a crime but the DPP may decide not to prosecute
if not in the public interest is a good compromise for an impossible dilemma.
Each case must be considered separately on its own merits otherwise a culture
in which relatives might feel obliged to be put down to avoid financial
distress to heirs or the medical profession agrees for “administrative
convenience” another Aktion T4 policy against the weak could result.

Chris Morriss
August 19, 2012 at 18:37

No! Laws must be clear, concise and unambiguous. I am one of those who
would like to see self-requested euthanasia legalised, but the law must be
clear and precise regarding when it is acceptable. Having it subject to the
transient prejudices of the DPP is not a situation that should continue.

Mudplugger
August 19, 2012 at 21:37

You are quite correct, and that’s the problem. I can’t imagine it would
ever be easy to codify a law relating to this area which would satify the
headline cases we currently see, but would equally protect the vulnerable
from inappropriate family pressure. The unpredictability of the DPP is no
comfort, neither is the variable ‘morals’ of the medics involved – one
doctor may be prepared to assist quietly while another may not.
I don’t
know the answer but I do know it’s a tough question in real life (and
death) cases.

WitteringsfromWitney August 19, 2012 at 21:49

See my response to Ancient + Tattered Airman?

dearieme August 19, 2012 at 14:57

I once commented on a blog that it was odd that the Reformation hadn’t
stamped out the medieval Roman Catholic superstition about witches. Another
commentator chided me for referring to medieval when I should, he said, have
referred to Renaissance. Be that as it may I still think it odd; after all,
removing what they viewed as superstitious accretions to true christianity is
what many reformers intended.

Michael August 19, 2012 at 11:05

I think many doctors will be breathing a sigh of relief at this
judgement.

GildasTheMonk
August 19, 2012 at 09:28

You make a perfectly fair point David – the very phrase “hard cases make
bad law” was in my mind. But I still feel that medical intervention should be
legalised. I foresee an interesting debate. If it is left to the family, are
they to smother the poor chap, or administer an amateur cocktail of drugs? Or
are we to have the de facto but random intervention of a doctor who is willing
to take his chances with the law?

David
Duff August 19, 2012 at 08:44

Reference Tony and Martin, with some trepidation I disagree with you. I
suggest you ponder further on the likely consequences over time once you open
that particular door even an inch. To quote the old saying, hard cases make
bad law. In such circumstances I suggest that it is the decision of the men’s
immediate loved ones that counts. They must take the decision and carry out
the action – and then face the consequences and justify it in court. In the
circumstances I do not believe they would spend a single hour in jail. I am
old enough to remember similar arguments put forward with great feeling and
sincerity in favour of legal abortion and all the sincere assurances that such
drastic action would only be permitted in certain specific and tragic cases.
Today we slaughter babies wholesale!

Anna
Raccoon August 19, 2012 at 09:03

I agree with you David. What is more, such a law could be operated under
the ‘extended autonomy’ operated by civil servants on behalf of those who
cannot speak for themselves by reason of the Mental Capacity Act – it
doesn’t bear thinking about!

Joe Public
August 19, 2012 at 11:29

“In the circumstances I do not believe they would spend a single hour in
jail.”

On occasions, the Law can be an unpredictable Ass – as discovered by Tony
Martin & Paul Chambers.

My opinion is that the opportunity to die with dignity should be a basic
Human Right.