MPs face ethical crux as judges let coma man die

THE MORAL, social and legal dilemmas surrounding euthanasia must be tackled by Parliament, the law lords said yesterday as they ruled that doctors have a right to withdraw treatment from Tony Bland, allowing him to die.

In a historic decision, the five law lords said doctors could end the artificial feeding which has kept alive Mr Bland, who has been in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) since he was crushed in the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster in Sheffield.

But their ruling contained open acknowledgements of their inability to deal with complex ethical issues beyond existing laws.

'Until recently there was no doubt what was life and what was death,' said Lord Browne-Wilkinson. 'Death in the traditional sense was beyond human control. Recent developments in medical science have fundamentally affected these previous certainties.'

Mr Bland, 21, would have died without tubes inserted into his body to carry nourishment. His eyes are open but he does not see, his limbs are twisted, his body distorted and movement is by reflex only. The part of his brain that gave him consciousness has turned to fluid. Drugs have to be administered to reduce dribbling and to treat the many infections to which he is prone.

The Lords endorsed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the President of the Family Division, when they ruled his interests would not be served by continuing with this 'futile' treatment which offered no prospect of recovery.

With the families of a small number of PVS patients hoping to take a similar course, the Lords said all such cases should be determined by a judge for now so they are open to scrutiny.

The decision, which brought England and Wales into line with other countries such as the US, met with vociferous and diverse reaction. While Mr Bland's parents, Allan and Barbara, expressed 'their great relief', 'pro-life' groups called it a 'monstrous

legal error'.

The British Medical Association welcomed the ruling, but others questioned whether the best way for patients such as Mr Bland to die was by starvation. Dr Keith Andrews, director of the Royal Hospital and Home in Putney, south-west London, which is home for several of Britain's 700 PVS patients, said: 'I do not hold views one way or the other about euthanasia, but I am saddened that by being unable to assist somebody to die, we have a prolonged death instead of a quick and dignified one.'

It was a sentiment recognised by the House of Lords. Under existing law, doctors could withdraw treatment, but not give a patient a lethal injection 'thereby saving his family from yet another ordeal', Lord Browne-Wilkinson said.

Asking how this could be lawful, he added: 'I find it difficult to find a moral answer to that question. It seems to me imperative that the moral, social and legal issues raised by this case should be considered by Parliament.'

Lord Mustill said the court had been forced to find a way through a 'legal and ethical maze'.

Family may grieve, page 2

Law Report, page 26