Click here to watch on BBC iPlayer until 7 November  and forward to 19:14 for the segment on assisted suicide. 

If you haven't already done so, take a look at our short film competition, 'ChildLike', which is now accepting entries. Please circulate to anyone who you think could be interested!

The ProLife Alliance welcomes today’s judgment which will protect the life of a 53 year old woman with minimal consciousness, known only as ‘M’.

In 2003 ‘M’ suffered brain damage, although she is not in what is called a “persistent vegetative state”, or PVS.  She responds to touch, can make some arm movements, and shows other interaction with her carers.   

Family members made an application to the Court of Protection for her food and hydration to be withdrawn to bring an end to her life.  The Official Solicitor and the family’s local NHS Trust opposed the application.  

An attempt by the ProLife Alliance to intervene on behalf of ‘M’ was declined.  We are grateful to specialist Court of Protection barrister Laura Davidson for her advice and assistance on our proposed intervention.

We applaud today’s decision that the court’s reasoning adopted in the Tony Bland case cannot be extended to patients who are in a minimally conscious state.  It would have been an outrage to human decency had the court granted the application and the declarations sought, and a failure by the state to protect society’s most vulnerable.  Such a decision would have been a flagrant breach of human rights, including both Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom from torture and inhuman degrading punishment or treatment), as well as the right to life under Article 2 – in essence, an endorsement of murder.

We would also like to draw attention to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disability, signed by the UK in 2009. Article 25 (f) of this Convention state that parties to the Convention must take "all appropriate measures" in particular to "prevent discriminatory denial of health care of health services or food and fluids on the basis of disability". 

A helpless patient should be entitled to be fed, given liquid, kept clean and pain-free, and treated medically insofar as it is helpful.   These are basic human rights which the courts have disgracefully denied to some 42 patients since the Bland case in 1993.

It should be noted that astonishing recoveries from serious cases of brain injury are not unknown, including that of Richard Rudd, who had locked-in syndrome and indicated by blinking that he wished to remain alive only hours before his life support machine was due to be turned off.

In welcoming this judgment we must now turn our attention to the original Bland decision and work to have this reversed by Parliament so that the human rights of all vulnerable patients are properly protected.

We tried to intervene in the case, believing that our knowledge and expertise would aid the court in its decision-making.  Unfortunately the Official Solicitor, the relevant NHS Trust and family members opposed the intervention.  

We sincerely hope that the judge will rule that the woman, known only as M, should not be killed through the removal of fluids and food, an inhumane and painful death, especially for someone who has demonstrated that she is able to understand requests. She has also demonstrated happiness at seeing certain people and has spoken. 

The ProLife Alliance believes that the right to life is a fundamental human right, regardless of a person's abilities, and should always be protected.

We will share information on the judgment when we have it and will be issuing a statement. 

Mrs Dominica Roberts, the alliance’s chairman, said: “If the court gives in to Martin’s request, it will place many more vulnerable people at risk. The long-term ill will feel under pressure to commit suicide or be killed, and the medical profession’s fundamental ethics will be compromised. The Dutch experience shows that euthanasia regulations are widely ignored. We do feel for Martin and his family, but the priority must be making his life as comfortable as possible.”

Martin, probably not his real name, has been paralysed since a stroke three years ago, and can only communicate through eye-movement and computer interaction. He is not close to death.  

The ProLife Alliance is on (020) 7581 6939.

What appears to be a condition with no light at the end of the tunnel, can sometimes reverse as is shown to two stories which the Sunday Times published on 17/7/11. The stories highlight how little medical understanding of minimal consciousness there is.

The newspaper reported the very moving story of Martin Pitorius, who was considered without hope of recovery. He was subjected to terrible abuse from his carers. He was fully aware but unable to communicate. Then, with the help of a very enlightened physiotherapist, he started to improve and learn to communicate again. Mr Pitorius has written a book about his experience called ‘Ghost Boy’. He remains very optimistic about life. He married two years ago, which is surely a sign of that positive attitude.

In the same issue, the Sunday Times reported the story of Nikki Kenward, who has also made a remarkable recovery from near total paralysis in which all she could do was wink one eye. Ms Kenward has decided to protest outside the court at today’s hearing. She feels strongly that if the court decides that M should be killed, it will open the flood gates and will people who are fully conscious but unable to communicate will be at great risk. The ProLife Alliance agrees.

By contrast, in today’s Times (19/7/11), Tony Nicklinson says ‘For pity’s sake let my wife kill me’. The tone of the article is that his life is worthless. Mr Nicklinson’s case is different from M, Nikki Kenward and Martin Pitorius as he has always been able to communicate, even though with the aid of electronic devices. Mr Nicklinson is clearly in a very depressed state.

It is interesting to contrast the attitudes of Mr Nicklinson and Mr Pitorius. One seeks help to die, the other communicates far and wide, starts his own business, gets a dog and finds a wife. The ProLife Alliance agrees that Mr Nicklinson seriously needs help, but he appears to be looking in all the wrong places and finding only those will reinforce his negative state of mind, such as the pessimistic proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

In the programme ‘Choosing to Die’, although there were two deaths, only one was shown (that of Peter Smedley). The other man, Andrew Colgan, suffered a tragic death the details of which were not mentioned at all in the programme. Clearly it was too terrible to show and would have been detrimental to the bias of the programme. This demonstrates the lack of objectivity of the programme makers and the promotional nature of the programme. How right we were to object so strongly to the showing of such a biased programme.

For our previous comment on this programme and details of how to complain to the BBC, click on this link.

At London’s Royal Hospital for Neurodisability (RHN), Mrs. McNeilly was already using a system called Eyegaze, where an infra-red camera set in the computer screen followed her eye movements, allowing her to operate an onscreen keyboard spelling out messages which are then spoken by a disembodied voice.

For the music making, she wore a cap lined with electrodes sensitive enough to detect patterns in her brain waves, which altered according to what she saw on screen. By focusing on different icons she could select strings or bass and by varying the intensity of her gaze she could cause the music to swell or diminish.

When asked about her feelings she said “We have a saying in Spain: God squeezes but he doesn’t choke.”

A person with locked-in syndrome is fully conscious, but cannot move or communicate, except sometimes through eye movements or blinking. The most common cause is a stroke, and the sufferer may be misdiagnosed as being in a coma or what is called (offensively, since no human being should be compared to a vegetable) a persistent vegetative state.

Probably most people feel that they would rather die than be in such a condition, but research shows otherwise. Members of the French Association for Locked in Syndrome, who had regained varying amounts of muscle control, were questioned by doctors from the University Hospital of Liege, Belgium. A surprising 72% of the patients declared that they were happy, and only a few, of whom most blamed incapacities which could be remedied, were very unhappy. Similar results have been found in a British hospital for people entirely paralysed apart from head movements. A major factor was the ability to communicate.

The study found that patients who had suffered for longer, and who had thus had time to come to terms with their changed lives, were more likely to be happy. This agrees with the well-established fact that even after an extreme change for good or for ill, by a year later most people are about as happy as they were before.

A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said that the dangers of undiagnosed Locked-in Syndrome are obvious. Imagine lying there helpless while well-meaning people discuss whether to end your life, as happened in the case of Richard Rudd. Or hearing doctors say that your case is hopeless, like Kerry Pink. The mere idea is horrifying, but cases like these show that with optimism and positive practical help.there is always a better solution than that proposed by pessimistic pro-euthanasiasts.

We must congratulate those remarkable scientists and doctors who have made such strides in helping people when so many are prepared to do nothing but advocate death.

Michael Irwin, who was struck off as a doctor in 2005, used to be president of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society before it changed its name to Dignity in Dying, and keeps trying, unsuccessfully so far, in spite of being involved in nine deaths, to become a martyr to the pro-euthanasia cause.

Nan Maitland , who though arthritic was still active, said she wished to escape the ‘long period of decline, sometimes called “prolonged dwindling”, that so many people unfortunately experience before they die’.

So often it seems that euthanasia activists have been frightened by seeing those they love suffering, or deteriorating in a way that is painful not for them but for their families. They become determined to frighten others. But there is evidence that the elderly are not only much healthier for much longer than used to be possible, but that they tend to be happier and more optimistic than younger age groups. A ski resort in the USA offered free ski-lift passes for over-seventies, and had so much take-up that they had to make it over-seventyfives the next year.

The slippery slope for Britons is noticeable: first it was terminally ill people with cancer or motor neurone disease, then those with progressive, but not necessarily fatal conditions like multiple sclerosis, and then those with severe non-fatal conditions like the young man paralysed in a games accident, and now a woman in reasonably good health who was just frightened of an imaginary future.

She is not the first. Minelli, who runs Dignitas, seems quite happy to provide death for anyone, including a mentally fragile brother and sister whom he callously said should never have been born. A healthy wife died with her ill husband under Belgian law recently. The conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife were a similar case. Suicides in opera, the last acts of Aida, or The Flying Dutchman, or the Ring Cycle, accompanied by wonderful music, can be moving and beautiful, but in reality it is a miserable end to any life and often leaves survivors unhappy and disturbed. (Though one cannot help noticing that while people who have to have a family pet put down, are always in floods of tears, this does not seem to apply to those who help friends and family to kill themselves so publicly in Zurich.)

One factor in the non-prosecution of these cases is that the dead have clearly not been under any pressure. They are such firm-minded people themselves that they simply cannot grasp how any relaxation of the law would put less assertive and confident elderly or handicapped people at risk.

Several thousand people in the UK, very sadly, manage to end their own lives every year without paying an Italian lawyer to help them. The overwhelming majority die naturally without prolonged disability or pain. Only a tiny percentage go to Dignitas, where a suicide is said to cost £10,000. In effect they are buying publicity, which no one would grudge them if it were not so dangerous for so many vulnerable people.

“All life is worth living,” Mme. Pavageau says. “It can be beautiful, regardless of the state we are in. And change is always possible. That is the message of hope that I wish to convey. I am firmly against euthanasia because it is not physical suffering that guides the desire to die but a moment of discouragement, feeling like a burden. All those who ask to die are mostly looking for love. My life is not what it could have been but it’s my life. I had the love of my husband and my daughter Miriam, who was two years old at the time and that gave me the strength to fight. “

Two years ago, Mme. Pavageau wrote an article in which she strongly criticised discussion of euthanasia in the media as being harmful in itself to sufferers, who may sometimes be feeling discouraged, and are not helped by what she called hypocritical suggestions that death was a loving answer to their problems.

A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said that the Prolife Alliance has pointed out in the past that it is not simply that it would harm vulnerable people in the future if euthanasia were legalised here. Harm is already being done by the constant drip drip of untruthful implication that uncontrollable pain and indignity are inevitable, and that handicapped and chronically ill people would be better off dead. While palliative care has improved enormously over the last thirty years, and is continuing to do so, people have needlessly become more frightened rather than less.

We applaud those like Mme. Pavageau and her family who take a more optimistic view of life.