FOUR YEARS OF 'FUTILE' DRUG TREATMENT
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Tony Bland was crushed and his brain died at Hillsborough football stadium in 1989, but in spite of the wishes of his parents that treatment should cease, he was not allowed to die until the House of Lords had ruled on his case four years later, writes Stephen Ward.
His parents, convinced they had lost their son but unable to grieve properly, mounted a legal battle so that he could be allowed to die. The key issue, which had never been tested in the English courts, was whether a feeding tube could be considered medical treatment. The five Law Lords were unanimous that he should be allowed to die, but they said the moral, social and legal dilemmas surrounding euthanasia must be tackled by Parliament.
Mr Bland, 22, would have died without tubes inserted into his body to carry nourishment. His eyes were open but he did not see and movement was by reflex only. Drugs had to be administered to treat the many infections to which he was prone.
Faced with this prognosis, the Lords endorsed the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal and the President of the Family Division when they ruled that his interests would not be served by continuing with this "futile" treatment.
Last year a court decided that a Broadmoor patient was allowed to refuse consent to have his gangrenous leg amputated, even if it endangered his life.
In another case, the woman cohabiting with a Norwegian stroke victim referred to as Mr S was able to gain an injunction preventing his son transporting him to Norway for treatment.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments