The issue of poor quality of life is often cited in the debate over abortion for disability and assisted dying.  Here is a young woman who is living proof of the importance of  positive support, both from her parents and from technology.

Well done to Joanne.  Last December  she persuaded the Irish Parliament to reverse a decision to reduce disability support for teenagers, now she is taking on the United Nations.  Her personal motto is ‘no limbs, no limit’.  We believe her.

Locked-in syndrome is a rare condition, but the evidence is overwhelming that if paralysed patients have a positive outlook they can live happy lives. Some, like Mrs. Allatt and Kerry Pink, may make a remarkable recovery.  Of those who remain very disabled, most are glad to be alive, and say that their lives, though different, are happy and often useful.

The reason for Kate Allatt's appearance on BBC Breakfast was the decision of the High Court to allow Tony Nicklinson's legal case.  She proved an excellent counter-balance in this topical issue.  Kate Allatt is an inspiration.  The ProLife Alliance congratulates the BBC on their excellent choice of guest.  

Mr. Nicklinson's demands go further than those at present made by Lord Falconer's discredited "commission", or by Dignity in Dying, though before they changed their name from the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Dignity in Dying promoted similar and even more extreme ideas.  He is not terminally ill, nor able to commit suicide even with help.  It is not the Suicide Act 1961 but the Murder Act 1965 which he wishes to subvert.

It is difficult to see how the common law defence of "necessity", which is sometimes applicable if killing one person is the only way to save another, can be thought to apply.  One possible parallel is the case of the conjoined twins, one of whom was deliberately killed to allow the other to live.  The ProLife Alliance pointed out at the time that once the principle that it can never be right for a doctor (or anyone else) deliberately to take an innocent life, even with an apparently good motive, the door is open to further abuses.

His claim that he is bringing a court action because Parliament will not discuss the matter is simply inaccurate.  Euthanasia in various forms has been exhaustively discussed by politicians, who have clearly seen the dangers and voted against weakening the law.

Mr. Nicklinson describes his life as "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable" but he does not wish to die immediately.

Others who are just as disabled take a less pessimistic view and are glad to be living even in difficult circumstances.

We must hope that when the case is tried, the courts will continue to protect the vulnerable.  The Daily Telegraph are carrying out a poll on assisted dying.  Please can we urge readers to vote in favour of life and the protection of the disabled.

He is at present being treated in Wellington Hospital, London.  While there are clearly practical family reasons for using a London hospital, it must be noted that the Netherlands does not have specialised centres for treating brain-damaged patients over 25.  It appears that Dutch doctors do not usually continue to treat patients whom they consider “brain dead”, i.e. permanently neurologically unresponsive, and in a persistent vegetative state, but, as they say, "allow them to die".

Dutch and German media have raised the question of euthanasia, which is of course widespread in Holland, and even of organ donation.  However the Dutch royal family are Evangelical Christians and believed to be very unlikely to favour euthanasia for the prince.  The head of the German Hospice Foundation said, "The fact that a few days after the accident, the question of euthanasia for Prince Friso is discussed publicly is appalling".

The standard of palliative care in Holland is incomparably poorer than in the UK.  Voluntary euthanasia (1.7%), non-voluntary euthanasia (0.4%) and terminal sedation accompanied by withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, now account for nearly one in ten Dutch deaths.

The ProLife Alliance has great sympathy for Prince Friso’s family at this difficult time, and also for all other families in a similar situation.  Since the Bland case in 1993 it has been legal in Britain to kill a patient in PVS by withdrawing artificially administered food and water.  The diagnosis of PVS has however been widely queried.  Patients supposed to be completely unresponsive have been shown to be conscious though unable to react, and others have surprised doctors by recovering a degree of ability.  The sheer horror for a patient lying helpless listening to doctors planning his or her death is indescribable.

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.