- "she knew what Thomas's wishes would have been"
- "he did not have the quality of life he wanted"
- "it would be better if he were dead"
- he was now "a vegetable"; and
- he had in fact "died" in the accident which left him brain-damaged.
Anthony highlighted, as others did, the following statement by the presiding judge as perhaps the most significant:
"We must also emphasise that the law does not recognise the concept implicit in the defence statement that Thomas Inglis was "already dead in all but a small physical degree". The fact is that he was alive, a person in being. However brief the time left for him, that life could not lawfully be extinguished. Similarly, however disabled Thomas might have been, a disabled life, even a life lived at the extremes of disability, is not one jot less precious than the life of an able-bodied person. Thomas's condition made him especially vulnerable, and for that among other reasons, whether or not he might have died within a few months anyway, his life was protected by the law, and no one, not even his mother, could lawfully step in and bring it to a premature conclusion."SPUC's bioethical experts will analyse and comment further on this fascinating judgment.
Comments on this blog? Email them to firstname.lastname@example.org
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy