Permanent vegetative state: comparing the law and ethics of two tragic cases from Italy and England.

Abstract

In April 1989, in England, Tony Bland aged 17 was trampled and crushed by a stampede at the Hillsborough football stadium ground – a disaster in which 95 people were killed. His lungs were crushed and punctured and the supply of oxygen to his brain was temporarily interrupted. Nearly three years later, in January 1992, in Italy, Eluana Englaro aged 21 lost control of her father's car whilst driving at night on an icy road and crashed into a lamp post, fracturing her skull and neck. When these young people were admitted to hospital, both of them were found to have suffered devastating anoxic brain damage and both were later diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. Their illness narratives have several commonalities, but they also diverge in significant ways. In this article we shall be exploring the views of the relatives, the public, and the health professionals, how their voices were heard, and how the values underpinning these differing accounts were interpreted by the courts of law. We shall critically evaluate the ethical and legal justifications for the final decision to allow these unfortunate young people to die from the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. We shall also consider the influence and interventions of the Church and the State in these two countries and how the law in England and in Italy resolved the moral and legal issues. From this analysis we shall reflect on what would appear to be the most humane and reasonable way forward.