New face for Nicklinson campaign

A man paralysed from the neck down who is taking over locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson's legal fight for the right to die can be named publicly, the High Court ruled last week.

Former builder Paul Lamb, who has been in "significant pain" since a road accident in 1990, wants a doctor to help him die, "preferably by lethal injection".

Lord Justice Elias granted an order in March for him to take the case to the High Court. Both Lamb and Nicklinson cases will be heard at the Court of Appeal on 13 and 14 May.

He joins forces with Tony Nicklinson's widow, Jane, who is continuing her late husband's original claim against section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, which makes assisted suicide a criminal offence, and for a declaration of necessity.

Like Nicklinson, Lamb's case goes beyond assisted suicide. Because his severe paralysis makes him unable to take his own life, he needs a doctor to kill him, which amounts to murder in England and Wales.

Solicitor Saimo Chahal of Bindmans, who is representing Lamb, told Private Client Adviser: "The way that the claim is made means that the courts would have to sanction any case where a person wished to avail themselves of an assisted death after carefully considering all of the evidence - much in the way that the courts consider withdrawal of nutrition and hydration cases now."

Lamb, 58, has required round-the-clock care since his accident 23 years ago left him without function in any limbs apart from minimal movement in his right hand.

Both Lamb's and Nicklinson's cases fall outside the scope of the DPP's February 2010 assisted suicide guidelines.

Lamb said: "I feel genuinely terrified by the fact of not having any choices left and having no control or autonomy over my life. I do not wish to go to Switzerland. Why should I go to a foreign and alien country to die?"

"I would like a doctor to help me to die, without pain and suffering, preferably by a lethal injection with my family around me in my own home."

Chahal said: "The case undoubtedly raises issue of huge moral, ethical and legal significance. It is important that the case is seen as extending rights rather than taking away anyone's rights."

She added that reform of the law was intended only to help "people who have made a clear and settled decision to end their life and cannot do so without the help of a doctor, due to the extent of that person's disabilities."