Nicklinson Right To Die Analysis

Throughout Jerome Taylor’s article the reader is introduced to Tony Nicklinson, a man suffering from a disease called ‘locked in syndrome’ which means he is ‘paralysed from the neck down’. Taylor explains Nicklinson’s argument for his ‘right to die’. Initially Nicklinson ‘once led an active life’ until he suffered from a stroke six years ago in the Athens and become ‘trapped in his own body’. This caused many upsets which lead to a downfall emotionally and physically as he was left disabled and unable to provide and care for himself.
Due to these tragic events Nicklinson’s fight for the ‘right to die’ is argued by the high court. Although, it may be his wish; but the court see his it as he is using euthanasia is taking advantage of his vulnerability.
Furthermore Nicklinson is unable to kill himself and wishes that a doctor could end his life without getting ‘prosecuted for murder’. After this was made apparent he was granted to carry out a full hearing regarding his case. In Nicklinson’s statement to the high court he informed them that he saw his life as ‘intolerable’ after the stroke occurred six years ago; He also goes on to say about how he is completely dependent on others and cannot communicate through talking. Although he cannot communicate through talking he has to use blinking instead. Due to his appeal against the law encourages the court to consider changing the law in comparison to Nicklinson having no ‘privacy or dignity’ and also as he is ‘fed like a baby’. While they consider this decision, legalising voluntary euthanasia would require approval from the doctors as they try to save the lives of people.
However if euthanasia was legalised then this could cause various problems for todays society. As many young vulnerable people may take advantage of the law and take their lives. To stop this from happening, the government would have to have strict guidelines on who are entitled to euthanasia, because of the lack of experience in the medical knowledge; As if not then this could cause a snowball affect which is where if someone in granted this then many other people would want this if they are terminally ill. So they cannot just grant it for one person and not another? The court may question themselves whether it is necessary to cross ‘the Rubicon’. Nicklinson demoralising circumstances force him to be like a ‘baby’ as he doesn’t have no ‘privacy or dignity left’ after being disabled as he is unable to care for himself. He also sates: ‘I cannot scratch if I itch…only I won’t grow out of it, unlike the baby’. He compares himself to a baby because he cannot physically do anything for himself.
Taylor suggests that doctors could maybe carry out this procedure on the account that they are protected ‘from prosecution’. The problem with this is that doctors could ‘murder’ patients without being ‘prosecuted’ then they may start to struggle with the responsibility. Nicklinson has tried to ‘fight’ for the ‘right to die’ rather than travelling to another country like Switzerland which it is legal for Euthanasia; as he would rather die in the surrounding of his own home. Nicklinson and many more others that have ‘locked in syndrome’ wish to have the choice to end their own ‘intolerable’ lives, but if he has lived with it for six years then why can he not go on any further through life. If the government grants him permission to have a doctor kill him and not be prosecuted without changing the law then will it cause more people in his situation to come forward and ‘fight’ for their ‘right to die’.
Furthermore, If Nicklinson’s wish is to die then why can’t he have that wish fulfilled and then the money the NHS are spending on keeping him alive be used for someone who actually would like to live; and that wants to live a rewarding life to have the opportunity.
As Nicklinson has stated that id he had the opportunity and if he knew that he was going to be a victim of ‘locked in syndrome’ then he would have let ‘nature take its course’ and let himself die. The case is the ‘latest right to die’ plea that has come before the courts to determine whether Euthanasia should be legal in certain circumstances. The judge, Justice William Charles states that ‘he was inviting the court to cross the Rubicon’. In contrast to this if euthanasia was legal then it could be more fanatically beneficial for families that can hardly afford the pricey treatment. During Taylor’s article it is clear that keeping Nicklinson alive is causing him to be ‘completely dependent on others’; which is costing a lot of money and time. Fundamentally if the patient is terminally ill and does not want to be alive for any longer, then they should take in to consideration the money and time it costs to keep alive and how it can help many others in this situation.
Overall, if Euthanasia were to become legal then it could cause many issues such as the approach society and parliament would have to take. It could cause serious exploitation to vulnerable patients, and have very ‘harrowing’ physiological effects. I personally, think that Euthanasia should only be legalised for terminally ill patients that are in despair, so people like Nicklinson can get their one and only wish in life. In Taylor’s article it is clear that he is the victim, It means that the public can now come together and maybe help him get his
wish.