Should Tony Nicklinson be given the right to die?

I've just realised I called this gentleman 'Tony Dickinson'. I'm sorry about that.

Must say I feel very privileged to live in a country where that choice would be open to me, and my family protected. And where, if ever I find myself in that situation, I would be able to get help in my own home, surrounded by my loved ones, rather than have to travel abroad to some horrible concrete block on an industrial estate. All measures are taken to ensure that there is no pressure from family or other parties, and I totally trust the system. I live in Switzerland, and have been a member of Exit for some years now.
Several of my UK friends have already asked if they could come over to stay with us should they ever find themselves in that dreadful predicament. You can be a member of Exit irrespective of nationality, as long as you are resident here.

And if he might still have to go to Dignitas anyway, would there be any point in setting up such a complicated system?

Meldrew, it may be technically very easy to 'control electrically powered injection equipment' but who is going to insert the intravenous cannula into his vein and load the drugs into the syringe?

I would have no idea where to start-- a bit useless like that I'm afraid.I did wonder if the Queen of Gransnet could point her press contacts in that direction?

meldrew, I'm impressed! Is there no way you can find out which legal firm is dealing with his family?

Re; Tony Nicklinson.
Sorry this post is late but being new I have been doing the background reading. I followed this case with considerable interest when it was current.
The situation as I understand it, is that the family are faced with a court case(with associated cost and emotional trauma) in order to absolve helpers from prosecution. This is deemed necessary because Mr N.is unable, by virtue of his condition, to initiate the final act of suicide entirely by himself.
In my view this is not the case.
MrN.is using a computer by word selection with eye movement which is all under his personal control. It is technically therefore very easy for a competent software engineer to program the machine so as to provide outputs to control electrically powered injection equipment. This is how computers control machines. The screen would show a set of 3 or 5 button icons which are click in sequence by eye within a time window.
Safeguards: more than one so it can't be done accidentally; the time window allows a change of mind if he wishes. Result: he is in control of the final act so no one is prosecuted.
He may still need to go to Dignitas to do it legally himself!
My dilemma is how to let his legal team know about it!

Yes, I believe that he should have the right to decide on his own destiny. As he logically points out he would have been legally able to commit suicide if he was not disabled. It's a tragic case and my sympathy goes out to his wife and daughters

Unfortunately, I fear the religious lobby will try to bring pressure to bear to prevent any legislation that might help in such extreme circumstances. We will hear, again, that god gives life and only god can take it away as we heard when the proposal was first made to decriminalise attempted suicide. No doubt the bishops in the House of Lords will put in their two penn'orth.

If someone can afford Tony Nicklinson the means to die, without being prosecuted, then that is a real gift.

Regarding legislation. There can be no absolute legislation for or against, nor inbetween - each case needs to be addressed individually.

Of course he should be allowed to ask a sympathetic medical professional to assist him in dying, if that is his decision.

We must all dread finding ourselves in this situation, and if our own religious beliefs mean that we do not see suicide as an option for ourselves, that does not allow any of us to impose our religious beliefs on another who does not share them.

Sorry, Nicklinson it is.
There is no comparison between his condtion and that of Stephen Hawking. Please google the name and read the desperate plea he has made to be allowed to die.
There is no support that anybody can give him that will lesson his nightmare. He has to be fed through a tube, hung in a sling to defecate, washed and changed like a baby.
It makes me feel claustrophobic just to think of being unable to move a muscle - 'locked in' really describes his plight.

Is the name not Nicklinson?

The difference between him and Hawking is that Nicklinson has stated that he wants to die. Hawking hasn't. It's quite a large difference.

Yes, Tony Dickinson should have the right to die. This man knows exactly what he wants - he has lived a really active life, holding down a responsible job until he suffered a massive stroke. He is desperate. The beseeching expression in this man's eyes tells it all.

How does he differ from Stephen Hawking? Is he getting enough support from outside bodies. Stephen Hawking is stimulated by his active brain and he's getting support and encouragement from those around which must give him some feeling of worth. I wonder what Tony Dickinson's situation is.

We wouldn't let a dog suffer like this, would we?

Of course there should be legislation to deal with cases like this, after all we have legislation regulating abortion!

I think someone should be allowed to help him die without being prosecuted.