I was reading an article earlier about the woman who is allowed to starve herself, as the courts, “do not think it is in her best interests” if doctors force feed her to keep her alive. And it got me thinking about the Nicklinson case.
Nicklinson was told by the courts that he wasn’t permitted to an assisted suicide. He has locked-in syndrome and couldn’t move any part of his body apart from his eyes. He had to speak using a computer which picked up on his eye movement and he had no quality of life. He wanted the courts to permit him euthanasia so he could end the suffering he and his family were going through. The courts objected to his case.
How come someone like Nicklinson wasn’t granted his wishes for an assisted suicide, yet a 29 year-old woman, who is anorexic, can have the courts object to doctors force feeding her to keep her alive? Surely it is classed as suicide if she is starving herself? And is it not assisted by not letting doctors feed her?
Why should an anorexic woman have the choice to end her life over someone who genuinely couldn’t help having the condition he had? Nicklinson’s lifestyle choices hadn’t made him have locked-in syndrome but it was her choice not to eat, so why can she be permitted to starve herself over someone who genuinely wanted to die because he had no life? Surely it was in Nicklinson’s “best interests” to have his wishes granted so he could be free of his suffering?
Nicklinson died six days after his court battle. Maybe it would have been six days less had the court had a heart and made an exception just this once.
As for the anorexic woman, well in my eyes she is in hospital due to her own doings, she chose not to eat, surely knowing it would result in her death, and the courts have just let her get on with it.
Where’s the justice in that?