The Right to Die

Laws are necessary, and if we want to avoid a Lord of the Flies-esque societal meltdown, they need to be enforced. Understandably, killing others is (obviously) a rigid law, totally unmalleable or up for review. In most cases this is wise, however in the case of Tony Nicklinson a bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss in the courtroom. In 2005 Tony Nicklinson suffered a devastating stroke which left him with locked-in syndrome, essentially meaning that his brain is fully functional but he is mostly incapable of using his body. Immediately after the stroke, he was able only to move his eyeballs, but can now communicate through a computer. Since 2007 he was wanted to die, and his decision has not waned.

Tony Nicklinson before the stroke he suffered on a business trip in Athens

"Indeed, I can expect to dribble my way into old age. If I am lucky I will acquire a life-threatening illness such as cancer so that I can refuse treatment and say 'no' to those who would keep me alive against my will.

"By all means protect the vulnerable," he added. "By 'vulnerable' I mean those who cannot make decisions for themselves. Just don't include me. I am not vulnerable. I don't need help or protection from death or those who would help me. If the legal consequences were not so huge – ie life imprisonment – perhaps I could get someone to help me. As things stand, I can't get help."

Computer equipment tracks the movement of his eyeballs to form words and communicate.

And he is right, of course he is right it's his existence. Surely this is the worst case of discrimination against the disabled to ever grace newsrooms? It is not illegal to commit suicide, but because Tony Nicklinson is so disabled that he can't, he isn't allowed to get assistance because of the legal consequences they will face. There has to be an element of re-evaluating the law for this case. The media hype he has aroused means that there should be an individual body. It is surely crueller to force this man to continue suffering than to let him peacefully pass away without the guilt of knowing someone will face life imprisonment on the behalf of killing him.

Laws are not permanent rules and change frequently depending on who is in power and when. And although yes, taking another person's life is morally wrong in almost all instances, in this one, it is not.