UK Paralyzed Man Loses Euthanasia Court Request

Tony Nicklinson, a UK man paralyzed with “locked in syndrome,” has lost his court request to be allowed to commit suicide—which would actually be euthanasia. From the Telegraph story:

Under recent guidelines from the Director of Public Prosecutions only family members or close friends who are motivated by compassion are unlikely to be   prosecuted for assisting a suicide. But Lord justice Toulson, sitting with Mr Justice Royce and Mrs Justice Macur, said that while the men’s plight was “deeply moving”, allowing them to end their lives would have implications “far beyond” their cases and exceed the power of judges. He said: “It is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place.”

But communicating through blinks recorded on a computer afterwards Mr Nicklinson said MPs would not act to change the law because they were “cowards”. In a message on Twitter, he added: “It’s not the result I was hoping for but it isn’t entirely unexpected. “Judges, like politicians, are happiest when they can avoid confronting the real issues and this judgment is not an exception to the rule.” He added: “Although I didn’t want to raise my hopes; it happened anyway, because a fantastic amount of work went into my case and I thought that if the court saw me as I am, utterly miserable with my life, powerless to do anything about it because of my disability then the judges would accept my reasoning that I do not want to carry on and should be able to have a dignified death.”

Not totally powerless. He could refuse medical treatment that sustains his life should he become ill.

A commenter identifying himself as Nicklinson has commented here—quite ably, I might add—in support of his own request to be killed. But the court is right: The request would impact far more than the individuals involved. A court fiat quasi-legalizing euthanasia—as happened in the Netherlands in 1973—would have sent the UK on the same vertical downward spiral we see in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Nicklinson calls the decision cowardly. To the contrary: In the face of the understandable hyper-emotionalism about his case, it was principled and courageous.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…