News

Those lobbying for the "right to die" for people with serious medical conditions have been so successful in generating attention to their cause that the "right to live" argument rather fell by the wayside.

So we welcome the judgement in favour of disability rights adviser Leslie Burke, who feared his degenerative brain disorder would one day lead to doctors hastening his death on the grounds that his quality of life had deteriorated.

Ever since the legal ruling that doctors could withdraw artificial feeding from Hillsborough stadium victim Tony Bland, who was left in a persistent vegetative state, many severely disabled people have felt uneasy about their relationship with the medical profession.


The Bland case led to the medical establishment producing guidelines on when drip-feeding could be halted. But, as the judge in the latest case pointed out, there are serious flaws in those guidelines. For one thing, they are based on a "quality of life" test that puts too much power in the hands of the doctor. A medic may well feel that a patient with severe disabilities has a poor quality of life. But that person may argue, "Actually I'm fine".


The new ruling helps swing the balance back in favour of the individual. For disabled people this is a real life or death issue. There will be widely differing views among disabled people themselves. And this is a tricky ethical area for all concerned. But the least people should be able to expect is that, when difficult decisions have to be made, the outcome accords with their wishes, not someone else's.