FOUR YEARS OF 'FUTILE' DRUG TREATMENT
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
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.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments