Let vulnerable have ‘quick, painless and dignified’ death, says wife of man in vegetative state

The wife of a man in a vegetative state has called for law to be changed on assisted dying to allow the vulnerable to have a “quick, painless and dignified” death.

The woman, whose husband is known only as LD for legal reasons, told a court hearing a legal battle over the withdrawal of his life support that vulnerable people should be allowed an “instant and peaceful death”.

LD has been in a specialist hospital for more than two years after suffering severe brain damage following a heart attack that caused a “prolonged disorder of consciousness”.

In March, the NHS integrated care board that manages LD’s care applied to the Court of Protection, a specialist family court, for permission to stop the clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) keeping him alive, claiming it was not in his “best interests”.

LD was described as a “kind and gentle” man who “lived his life to the full” and “loved animals and nature”, but who was now in a permanent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery.

In a hearing last month, the court in London heard that LD’s family and friends were divided on whether the treatment should be withdrawn, with his wife weeping as she said she hoped “the law regarding euthanasia can be debated very soon”.

The court heard that while some members of his family wished for the nutrition to be withdrawn, others, including his wife, were opposed as death would not be instant.

In a ruling published on Friday, Mrs Justice Theis said she had concluded with “profound sadness” that treatment could be withdrawn, meaning LD is expected to die within three weeks.

She said: “The evidence demonstrates from those who have actual experience of this that discontinuing CANH will enable LD to die with dignity, in the least discomfort, in the greatest peace and with those who want to be with him to be able to do so.”

Holding back tears while reading a statement to the court in June, LD’s wife described withdrawing CANH as death “by starvation” and called for a change to the law on assisted dying.

She said: “The proposal to end [LD’s] life by starvation is inhumane, torturous, tragic and painful.”

She continued: “I find myself helpless in many ways but I can only say what [LD] and I believe – hopefully it will make a difference.

“I hope that the law regarding euthanasia can be debated very soon to allow an instant and peaceful death for vulnerable people like [LD] who are incapable of making the decision for themselves.

“Death must be quick, painless and dignified.

“I have faith and sincerely believe the system will make a change in the law which now only allows for the withdrawal of CANH as a method of withdrawing life.”

A friend of LD, who also opposed the withdrawal of treatment, said in their statement that there was “no harm in leaving [LD] to die a natural death”, but that euthanasia would be a “more acceptable alternative”.

They said: “There could well be a vote on euthanasia early in the next parliament.

“I plead for the court to take this into consideration on whether or not to allow the withdrawal of CANH.”

But Sir Keir Starmer has suggested that assisted dying laws will not be repealed for at least 18 months.

In a blow for campaigners, the Prime Minister said he had other priorities for his first year in office.

Calls for a change in the law have gained traction since Dame Esther Rantzen, the former That’s Life presenter, revealed she had late-stage cancer and had joined the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland.

Assisted dying reform was last voted on in the Commons in 2015, when it was defeated at second reading by 330 votes to 118.

No commitment on timing

Asked about potential reforms, the new Prime Minister said he had other priorities for his first 12 months in the job.

Sir Keir said: “What I said was that we would provide time for this, obviously, by way of a private members’ bill, and there will be a free vote, that remains my position.”

He added: “As to the timing of it, I haven’t made a commitment on timing and I don’t want to.

“I’m not going back on the commitment I made, but we have got to set out priorities for the first year or so, but I will double down on the commitment, we will allow time for a private members’ bill, and there will be a free vote.”