This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/03/tony-nicklinson-family-right-appeal

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Tony Nicklinson's family wins right to appeal against high court ruling Tony Nicklinson's family wins right to appeal against high court ruling
(12 days later)
The family of the locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson has won permission to continue his right-to-die campaign by appealing against a high court ruling that went against him.The family of the locked-in syndrome sufferer Tony Nicklinson has won permission to continue his right-to-die campaign by appealing against a high court ruling that went against him.
Nicklinson, 58, died a week after he lost his legal bid to end his life with a doctor's help.Nicklinson, 58, died a week after he lost his legal bid to end his life with a doctor's help.
The father of two had been refusing food and contracted pneumonia after he was left "crestfallen" by the court's decision. He died at his home in Melksham, Wiltshire, surrounded by family on 22 August last year.The father of two had been refusing food and contracted pneumonia after he was left "crestfallen" by the court's decision. He died at his home in Melksham, Wiltshire, surrounded by family on 22 August last year.
The family vowed to continue Nicklinson's campaign, and on Thursday it was confirmed that the court of appeal had given permission for his widow, Jane, to bring an appeal against the high court decision.The family vowed to continue Nicklinson's campaign, and on Thursday it was confirmed that the court of appeal had given permission for his widow, Jane, to bring an appeal against the high court decision.
The appeal is being seen as an important test case on whether medical help can legally be provided to those seeking the right to die.The appeal is being seen as an important test case on whether medical help can legally be provided to those seeking the right to die.
Jane Nicklinson has said that continuing the legal battle is likely to involve a long campaign, fraught with legal technicalities, but the family sees it as "part of Tony's legacy". She added: "We're fighting for him, on his behalf."Jane Nicklinson has said that continuing the legal battle is likely to involve a long campaign, fraught with legal technicalities, but the family sees it as "part of Tony's legacy". She added: "We're fighting for him, on his behalf."
Tony Nicklinson was a keen sportsman until he was paralysed by a stroke while on a business trip to Athens in 2005.Tony Nicklinson was a keen sportsman until he was paralysed by a stroke while on a business trip to Athens in 2005.
Three judges sitting at the high court in London referred to his "terrible predicament" and described his case as "deeply moving and tragic".Three judges sitting at the high court in London referred to his "terrible predicament" and described his case as "deeply moving and tragic".
But Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Royce and Mrs Justice Macur unanimously agreed it would be wrong for the court to depart from the long-established legal position that "voluntary euthanasia is murder, however understandable the motives may be".But Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Royce and Mrs Justice Macur unanimously agreed it would be wrong for the court to depart from the long-established legal position that "voluntary euthanasia is murder, however understandable the motives may be".
They said doctors and solicitors who encouraged or assisted another person to commit suicide were "at real risk of prosecution".They said doctors and solicitors who encouraged or assisted another person to commit suicide were "at real risk of prosecution".
Refusing judicial review, the judges agreed that the current law did not breach human rights and it was for parliament, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.Refusing judicial review, the judges agreed that the current law did not breach human rights and it was for parliament, not the courts, to decide whether it should be changed.
Appeal judges will now have to decide whether or not they agree with the high court's stance.Appeal judges will now have to decide whether or not they agree with the high court's stance.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.