In the news last week was yet another story of a seriously ill British man, living in a virtually vegetative condition with no realistic chance of recovery, being denied the right to end his life. The case went before the courts and the decision was that, no matter how much he was suffering, no matter the lack of any decent  quality of life and no matter that he fervently wanted to bring his life to a close, the  State would not allow it. Suicide or assisted suicide is not permitted by law.

There are many who feel that a person who has no chance of recovery and who suffers constantly and who wishes to end their own life but is physically incapable of doing so should be able to call upon medical assistance to end it for them. That seems to make sense provided that  person is of sound mind and has reached his or her decision without duress or interference from a third party  (an unscrupulous relative benefitting under that person’s will for example).

Questions then arise over proof of sanity and lack of duress and also the incredible responsibility on the person or persons asked to make that decision whether they be in medicine or the law. Some cases may seem obvious, for example where there is no possibility of a medical recovery and no chance of a return to normality for the patient (whatever that is) but other cases may be less clear cut.

The situation at the moment is that terminally ill patients, and their loved ones, either carry on suffering to the bitter end or risk breaking the law and a sentence of imprisonment. If they are wealthy enough they could book a flight to Switzerland and take the assisted suicide route provided by Dignitas but, whichever way you look at this tragic situation, the law is in a mess. The courts weren’t wrong to make the decision they made last week, they were simply upholding the law. That law needs to be reviewed  and, almost certainly, to be amended. Most of us have a choice as to how we live our lives, shouldn’t we also have a choice as to how we end them?