THE father of Hillsborough victim Tony Bland asked the High Court in
London yesterday to allow his son to die with dignity.
Mr Allan Bland, 57, told Sir Stephen Brown, the President of the
Family Division, that Tony, 22, who has no hope of recovery, used to be
''happy-go-lucky, sensitive, and willing'', with a wide circle of
friends.
In the three and a half years since the Liverpool fan was crushed in
the disaster at the Sheffield football stadium -- which killed 95 people
-- he had never seen any sign of recognition, or response from him.
''He would not want to be left like this if he were able to choose'',
said his father.
Mr Bland said he, his wife, Barbara, 54, and the rest of the family,
who come from Keighley, Yorkshire, were all agreed.
''The best course for Tony is for the feeding tube to be removed to
allow him to die with dignity.''
The Airedale NHS Trust, which cares for the young man at Airedale
General Hospital, is seeking a declaration that it would be lawful to
discontinue his life-sustaining treatment and allow him to die of
natural causes which, it was thought, would take two weeks at most.
The test case has far-reaching significance for the medical staff.
They fear they could lay themselves open to prosecution for murder, or
manslaughter -- or in some cases a civil action for damages -- if they
disconnect a feeding tube without court permission.
The trust's counsel, Mr Robert Francis, QC, said many would regard the
young man's condition as being ''little more than a living death''. He
was in a ''pitiful state'', and needed up to five hours care from two
nurses every day.
Scans carried out last month showed that the thinking part of his
brain had degenerated to such an extent that there was more space than
substance.
Mr Francis said Mr Bland, who suffers frequent infections, could only
deteriorate. His standard of life was minimal, and he was, objectively
speaking, suffering.
He said in such a case it was not unlawful, if it was in the patient's
best interests, to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. It would be the
underlying brain injury which would cause death -- as a matter of law --
and not the doctor's act.
The Judge must consider whether doctors can withdraw ''treatment'' in
the same way as ventilators are switched off, or drugs withdrawn in the
cases of other terminally-ill patients.
Mr Bland's consultant, Dr James Howe, said in his opinion artificial
feeding amounted to ''medical treatment'' because it required equipment
and skilled personnel. ''I can see no benefit to Tony in treating him
like this.''
Dr Niall Cartlidge, consultant neurologist at the Royal Victoria
Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, said it would be justifiable to withdraw
medical treatment which was serving no useful purpose.
The patient would not suffer. ''He is not capable of appreciating
pain. He cannot see, hear, or feel,'' he said.
Mr James Munby, QC, for the Official Solicitor, which is representing
the young man's interests and opposes the trust's application, said that
if a doctor did an act, realising it might cause his patient's death, he
might be charged with unlawful killing.
To withdraw the feeding tube was such an act and must, therefore, be
unlawful.
The withdrawal of medical treatment from a patient who was not dying
-- and Tony Bland was not dying -- could be lawful only if the pain,
suffering, and distress inflicted on the patient by continuing the
treatment, outweighed any benefit derived by him.
Medical evidence was clear and unanimous that the young man felt no
pain and was not suffering, because he could not. There was, therefore,
no justification for discontinuing treatment.
The hearing continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article