Tony Nicklinson wants to die. If he could end his own life without direct assistance, it is possible that he would already have done so. Following a stroke in 2005, he suffers from "locked-in syndrome". He blinks and nods to spell out words with the aid of a Perspex board and letters, and, beyond that, he is immobilised. Tony, who is 56, says he does not want to "dribble his way into old age". His legal team are now seeking a judicial review to clarify the law on assisted suicide in a case like Tony's. Yesterday, his wife Jane read out a statement from her husband in an effort to explain why he feels that death may be his only way out of his perceived bodily imprisonment:
"I am a 56-year-old man who suffered a catastrophic stroke in June 2005 whilst on a business trip to Athens, Greece. It left me paralysed below the neck and unable to speak. I need help in almost every aspect of my life. I have no privacy or dignity left. I am washed, dressed and put to bed by carers who are, after all, still strangers. I am fed-up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this. "Am I grateful that the Athens doctors saved my life? No, I am not. If I had my time again, and knew then what I know now, I would have not called the ambulance but let nature take its course."
Tony Nicklinson wants his wife to help him to die, but he fears that she would then be liable to prosecution for murder. His request raises profoundly difficult questions for all of us. In the classic case of murder, an assailant takes a victim's life against the will of the victim, and with a demonstrably malicious intent. Supporters of Tony Nicklinson's request say his case is different: he would be consenting to his own death, and his wife -- if she were to assist him -- would be acting mercifully, in his best interests. Tony has the capacity to give informed consent to any assistance in respect of his own death; to permit that assistance if to recognise his autonomy.
Opponents say a change in the law (or the prosecution policy) to permit Jane to assist her husband to die without any risk of prosecution, would threaten the security of many vulnerable people. They say it is better to allow a court to consider the particulars of indiividual cases; and, in many cases, when a British jury considers a case of mercy killing, it will express compassion to the accused. In other words, we don't need to change the law, because the law, as it stands, permits mercy to be shown to a person who takes another's life as an act of mercy. If we change the system, it is possible that some could abuse the liberalised rules to act maliciously against the stated wishes of vulnerable people.
These are the main ethical arguments so far deployed in this debate; there are cultural and theological arguments too. But it would be a mistake to stereotype religious arguments, as if to suggest that all people of faith find themselves on the same side of the debate. Some very vocal Christian leaders have expressed their opposition to any liberalisation of the law to permit assisted suicide or any form of euthanasia (passive or active). But some theologians have also argued that some forms of euthanasia, and some instances of assisted suicide, are gracious acts which are consistent with responsible Christian discipleship.
What should the law in the UK say about cases like this one? And what role should theological and biblical arguments play in the current public debate?
Ask people around the world what comes to mind when they think of Northern Ireland and some will say Giants' Causeway or Titanic. But more will say sectarianism, racism and hatred. Some recent studies have even labelled Northern Ireland . What can be done to reverse that reputation, and to tackle the causes and the consequences of sectarianism, racism and hatred here? 
