Do you have a right to end your life?

Tony Nicklinson describes his life as "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable." This is because he suffers from locked-in syndrome, a condition that has left him paralysed, incapable of speech or movement. He is currently in the midst of a legal battle that has made headlines and news bulletins across the world today. Mr Nicklinson wants the right to die and the High Court have ruled that his case will be heard, despite opposition from the Ministry of Justice. It has brought this question back into society: do you have a right to end your life?

No, is the simple answer. The 1961 Suicide Act states it is illegal for a person to aid or carry out the suicide of another person, no matter the circumstances. In fact, it carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. And this is what Mr Nicklinson is fighting in the courts: he wants to ensure that when his time comes, and he wants to end his life, the person responsible will not be punished. 

The debate around euthanasia is one of the most dividing and passionate in society. Those against it believe life is too sacred to be ended on demand. We, human beings, faced incredible odds to even exist in the first place and the argument is we should "waste" this opportunity. Despite being fully paralysed, Mr Nicklinson has a functioning mind, capable of intelligent thought and killing an intelligent being is an act of murder. This is the point that the Ministry of Justice were seeking to make in court today.

Another argument against assisted dying involves doctors themselves. It is argued that doctors should not have the power to "play God" and kill a man or woman. But don't doctors make this decision everyday, when they ask a family of an ill patient to allow a non-resuscitation order? Is this not a similar situation? Euthanasia is an incredibly serious issue but doctors make decisions based on the medical situation of a patient. Again, this is what will be the next development in the case of Mr Nicklinson: a full hearing in the courts, featuring evidence from medical experts.

The third argument against euthanasia is the "slippery slope." The anti-euthanasia lobby call it "legalised killing" and believe it would set a dangerous precedent. For example, a doctor could kill a patient and say they wanted to die, as a defence. It has even been suggested as (rather sickingly) a cost-cutting measure. A study in 1998 found that doctors, who are conscious of costs would be more likely to give lethal medicine to a terminally-ill patient. At a time of cuts and job losses, as well as a lack of hospital beds and resources, is it too far-fetched to say that euthanasia would be used to curb costs and save the pennies? Not to the critics, no.

The case of Mr Nicklinson has brought this debate back into mainstream media, a good thing in my view. I am personally pro-euthanasia. In a society that promotes the rights of the individual, that argues that human beings have choice over every aspect of their life, whether that is their career, their home, their lifestyle, even their gender, should they not be given the right to control their greatest aspect? Should they not be given that choice? It is your opinion. But as Mr Nicklinson's wife Jane said:

"I'm delighted that the issues surrounding assisted dying are to be aired in court. Politicians and others can hardly complain with the courts providing the forum for debate if the politicians continue to ignore one of the most important topics facing our society today."

The forum has been opened and let the debate begin.