THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE PROTECTED FROM AN EXISTENCE WORSE THAN DEATH - BRITAIN'S SUPREME COURT TAKE NOTE! THE END.

Yes, I should probably not pre-judged the likely decision of the erudite and eminent judges who will be hearing this case. Yet, considered in the still prevailing socio-political and religious context which tend to surround these cases, it is difficult to be optimistic.  

In deference to our 'make-belief gods' and unscientific and illogical religious beliefs about life and death, innocent people like Mr Conway must be condemned to an existence of 'living death.' Be removed from the world of the living, where none can hear their silent and terrified screams, because their illnesses has perniciously robbed them of their voices, and their bodies of movements and the ability to communicate non-verbally.

So, will the Supreme Court Judges hearing Mr Conway's case pass judgement in his favour and best interests, or in the favour and assumed best interest of the proverbial public? Will the Judges rule in what is described at 'the public's interests', or in what is in Mr Conway's interests? 

Will Mr Conway's happiness, dignity and life be sacrificed, in the interest of the Judiciary not wanting to set a precedent which others could subsequently follow in arguing similar cases, by denying him his human rights? 

Is it such a bad or undesirable thing that men and women should be able to exercise their human right not to have to passively become degraded by terrible diseases, until they lose all their physical and mental capacities and be consumed by fates which are worse than death, before they are released by death itself? 

Does society and the public really gain anything from such legal, social and religious torturing of individual human beings?

I suspect not. So, let me hope that the esteemed Judges of the United Kingdom will not only have the jurisprudence to make a determination based on the human rights merits of Mr Conway's case, primarily for him, and not that of the public, which is not the applicant. But also that they have courage and basic humanity to deliver an enlightened verdict. 

Let Mr Conway and others in similar unenviable predicaments, exercise their human rights to die, and to die in dignity, instead of  'living or existing without dignity and/or the ability to give effect to his life.'

And to be able to do so without on each occasion, having to experience the additional trauma of having to resort to this and that court to be able to live and die with the dignity befitting of the human condition.