Well, last week’s “inspirational crip story” in the UK was about Richard Rudd, who was saved from being disconnected from life-sustaining treatment by being able to blink on request and to communicate his wish to live – contrary to his advance directive and prior statements to family.
I guess that a story built on the idea that it’s OK to live with a significant disability couldn’t go uncontested for long.
This week’s crip story in the UK is about Tony Nicklinson, who lives with “locked-in syndrome” as a result of a stroke he had five years ago. Nicklinson isn’t interested in living – he wants death, and isn’t satisfied with starvation/dehydration as a method (refusing food and water is his right).
Nope. Mr. Nicklinson wants a legal guarantee of nonprosecution if his wife actually kills him.
From the story in The Guardian:
A 54-year old engineering executive who suffered a massive stroke and now lives with “locked-in” syndrome, unable to move anything except his head and eyes, today called on prosecutors to clarify whether his wife will be prosecuted for murder if she kills him with a lethal injection.
Tony Nicklinson has applied to the high court to force Kier Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, to issue guidance stating that prosecuting people for murder who engage in so-called mercy killings may sometimes be contrary to the public interest.
Well, that didn’t take long, did it? It’s been about four months since Starmer published his “guidelines” that gave instructions to family members about how to make sure they avoided prosecution after having assisted an old, ill or disabled family member to commit suicide.
Already, there’s a legal challenge saying the “guidelines” are too restrictive for family members to safely and lovingly kill the disabled people in their household with legal immunity.
More from the article:
But the DPP’s statement, listing six mitigating factors against an individual’s being prosecuted for assisting suicide, does not apply to Nicklinson’s proposed euthanasia because he cannot be helped to kill himself; he must be killed.
Jane Nicklinson is unwilling to break the law, risking prosecution for murder, and her husband refuses to allow her to do so. They argue that Nicklinson is being discriminated against on the grounds of his disability, and that if he was able bodied, he would be free to take his own life.
“It needs to be possible,” Jane Nicklinson told the Guardian. “Nobody is saying it needs to be easy, but it needs to be possible. Poor old Tony is suffering … The law needs to be changed. It is the only way for Tony to get what he wants … I get cross that anyone would question what we are after. He just wants what everyone else can do. Suicide is legal.”
A statement from Bindmans, the solicitors acting on his family’s behalf, said: “Tony Nicklinson contends that the current law of murder, which prohibits in absolute terms all intentional killing, whatever the motive and regardless of the ‘victim’s’ wishes, constitutes an interference with his rights to respect for his private life under Article 8 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights. … He states that he is not depressed and he is not in need of counselling. He has had almost four years to think about his future, and he does not relish the prospect.”
So, in a rather crappy – but predictable – turn, the agenda of pro-euthanasia campaigners is being advanced under the heading of “disability rights.”
According to an article in The Independent, Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the pro-euthanasia group Dignity in Dying, is very very supportive of Nicklinson’s action – no surprise there:
Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: “Mr Nicklinson’s situation is rare and tragic. His request to die presents society with difficult questions, for which there are no easy answers.“One thing is clear: the current law fails Tony Nicklinson and his family.“The law of murder is primarily used to convict people who act out of malicious motivation and as such carries a mandatory life sentence. It should not be used to prosecute someone who compassionately helps a person who is suffering to die at their request.“The Law Commission established this as an area of concern in its 2006 review of murder law, calling for a further review into whether there should be a specific offence or defence of ‘mercy killing’.“In the absence of any review, we hope that this legal case will help to clarify the law as it applies to Mr Nicklinson and others, and put further pressure on the Government to address the problems with our existing and outdated murder law.”She continued: “This case raises many ethically difficult questions.
Wootton states – twice – that this situation raises many “difficult questions.” I noticed, though, that she has her one stock answer ready:
“Kill him.”
That seems to be the extent of the insights of activists like Wootton into the needs of people with disabilities. I can only imagine the feelings of nausea, anger and outrage being felt in the disability in the UK right now, where budget fights are making the basics of living more and more difficult. –Stephen Drake
This story sickens me. I became Aphasic via head injury 29 years ago. There was no help, no ADA, no nothing. My doctor called me a “carrot.” I had to teach myself how to read, to write, to communicate again. To this day, I read lips because my brain often translates the human voice as gibberish.
Had there been idiots like Wootton pushing death to the disabled in the US back then, I might’ve given in. I would have missed the fight back to language. I’m so angry I could eat nails! So what if I’m not “normal?” I’m ALIVE.
Why is it that Aphasic life is something to end, to throw away? No wonder disability activists in the UK are so angry all the time!
People talk about mercy killing for the disabled,
but if a person attempting suicide is healthy (suicidal because of emotional depression)people understand that suicide is wrong.