Terminally ill Noel Conway loses challenge to assisted dying ban

The 68-year-old retired lecturer from Shrewsbury, who says he feels "entombed" by his illness, has fought a long legal battle for the right to a "peaceful and dignified" death.

He wanted help to die - which the law prevents - when he has less than six months left to live, still has the mental capacity to make the decision and has made a "voluntary, clear, settled and informed" decision.

He proposed that he could only receive assistance to die if a High Court judge determined that he met all three of those criteria.

Mr Conway challenged an earlier High Court rejection of his case at a hearing in May.

Parliament's place

But his case was rejected on Wednesday by three senior judges - Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, Sir Brian Leveson and Lady Justice King.

Reading a summary of the ruling, Sir Terence said the court concluded it is not as well placed as Parliament to determine the "necessity and proportionality of a blanket ban".

He also said the High Court had evidence before it from which it could find that Mr Conway's proposed scheme was "inadequate to protect the weak and vulnerable" and failed to give enough weight to the "significance of the sanctity of life and to the scheme's potential to undermine trust and confidence as between doctors and patients".

Sir Terence added: "From the outset, we emphasise our great respect for him (Mr Conway) and for the dignity and courage which he has shown."

Disappointment

Mr Conway, who is supported by the campaign group Dignity in Dying, was too unwell to travel to London for the hearing.

He is now dependent on a ventilator for up to 23 hours a day and only has movement in his right hand, head and neck.

Speaking after the ruling, Mr Conway said he now intends to take his fight to the Supreme Court.

He said: "I am naturally disappointed by today's judgment, though it was not unexpected.

"I fully intend to appeal it with the support of my legal team."

He added: "I will keep fighting for myself and all terminally ill people who want the right to die peacefully, with dignity and on our own terms."

'Barbaric'

Mr Conway said it is "barbaric" for him to be forced to choose between the "unacceptable options" left open to him for his death.

He said: "This illness has already taken away my ability to breathe independently and I am now almost completely immobile.

"I know it will also rob me of my life, and I have accepted that.

"But what I cannot accept are the options I am faced with under the current law."

He cites his current options as to "effectively suffocate" by choosing to remove his ventilator or spend thousands travelling to Switzerland to end his life and have his family risk prosecution.

Reaction

His appeal was opposed by the Secretary of State for Justice, with Humanists UK, Care Not Killing and Not Dead Yet UK also making submissions.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "Although we are disappointed, this outcome was anticipated and we remain undeterred.

"The assisted dying debate should have at its very core the voices of terminally ill people like Noel - the real experts in death and dying."

"An increasing number of jurisdictions in the US, Canada and Australia have listened to terminally ill people, examined the limits of palliative care and concluded that it is perfectly possible, and indeed necessary, to introduce compassionate, evidence-based assisted dying legislation that provides choice to dying people while better-protecting the rest of society.

"Because our Government has so far failed to do so, Noel is being forced to spend his final months fighting in the courts for his fundamental rights."

Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, said: "This sensible decision by the Court of Appeal yet again recognises that the safest law is the one we already have - a complete ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia."