Report comment

It astounds me that this is still an issue that is to be resolved.

The stance taken by the SSJ is based on a wildly anachronistic morality that has little, if any, place in modern society. The 'sanctity of life' statement has particularly riled me - what little dignity and quality of life Mr Conway will be forced to endure, in the phrasing of the judgement being "entombed in his own body", is not representative of the spirit of this.

I have long said that the act of assisting suicide can be safeguarded against abuse by as little as requiring the individual's explicitly expressed desire to die, independent assessment of two doctors and a High Court order. The framework proposed by Mr Conway is even more robust, and as Jonathan Massey at 11.30 quite rightly (in my opinion) states, "if Parliament won't act, why not look to the Courts?"

As far as I see, the only possible contrary provision in 8(2) is for the 'protection of the rights and freedoms of others' - one could argue that it breaches the rights of, for example, any family members who do not agree with Mr Conway. But this is a flimsy and treacherous platform, as surely his own rights and freedoms are of greater consideration in these circumstances.

As for financing this matter, this is an important issue that affects many people. I would imagine the possibility, however slim, of implementing a method for a dignified end for terminally ill people on their own terms has influenced the donations made, not the chance to be on the 'winning team'. And personally, as emotionally charged as this opinion is, I think this issue would be much more deserving of public funding than funding the legal representation of parents to children in care who cannot even be bothered to attend contact sessions and Court hearings for their own children.