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the same way as ventilators are switched off, or drugs withdrawn in the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.