If you were the judge, what would you decide in the Tony Nicklinson case?

Tony Nicklinson was a rugby star in the UK. After retiring, he became a high-flying executive in Dubai, where he spent his free time sky-diving and bridge climbing. But all that ended with a paralyzing stroke seven years ago. Since then, he has been a brain locked in an almost immobile body. He can move his head a bit, and nothing else. He can’t even speak. He needs constant care to stay alive. And he doesn’t want to stay alive.

For a man whose entire life had been action on the edge, it’s certainly understandable what an unbearable life in solitary confinement sentence his current condition must feel like to him. He has petitioned the British High Court to declare that a doctor who gives him a lethal injection will not be held guilty of murder. He wants to die. By head movement he has clearly indicated it is his desire to die.

Now most people who want to die can simply do so by their own action. But Tony isn’t in that class. He can’t end his own life, and he can’t even die by refusing to cooperate with those who force feed him and remove his bodily wastes.

Are you pro life or pro choice? How would that position reflect on this case if you were the judge and if British Law gave you no clear direction on which way to decide the case? If you are strongly Pro Life, do you believe you have the right to force another person to live a life they find unbearable?

I realize this issue is VERY different from the abortion debate, where the unborn has no say in the matter. So please answer this question outside of that debate. Does an adult of competent mental capacity have a right to die, or do others control that decision for the individual in question?