At the age of 51 Mr. Nicklinson was left paralyzed from a stroke. He was not content with his quality of life for the last seven years and therefore concluded that he wished for it to come to an end. Mr. Nicklinson, for obvious reasons, was not capable of carrying out such a task without assistance and therefore preferred to be administered a lethal drug. He was also prepared to do this via a machine designed to administer the drug which would be instructed by Mr. Nicklinson himself through an eye blink computer. The form of relief that Mr. Nicklinson sought would not be permitted. Therefore, he applied to the high court that it would be legal for a doctor to kill or assist him in killing himself. Furthermore, he also applied that the current …show more content…
Mr. Nicklinson’s spouse, Jane, initiated a claim of her own which was dismissed by the court of appeal. Furthermore, Mr. Lamb had been immobile, given that he could move just his right hand, since a car crash in 1990. Because of his irreversible condition he sought the same relief as Mr. Nicklinson but was denied by the Court of Appeal. Another appeal was bought forward by an individual by the name of Martin. During August 2008, at the age of 43, Martin suffered from a brain stroke and was left almost completely immobile. Because of his incurable state, Martin wished to end his life by travelling to Zurich, Switzerland. There he would be able to use the Dignitas service which legally permitted individuals to end their lives if they truly wished to do so. For obvious reasons, Martin did not want to include any family members for this task and required the assistance of a carer or someone from a relevant organization. Martin sought the clarification that the individual who assisted him in this task would not be prosecuted. Martin’s proceedings joined with those of Mr. Nicklinson were denied by the High Court. Consequently, he attempted to end his life through starvation and was