THE tragic situation of Tony Nicklinson (above) raises some serious and complex moral issues. He was left paralysed from the neck down after a massive stroke in 2005. In a locked-in condition, he is unable to speak, is dependent on other people for help with basic bodily functions, and is able to communicate solely by moving his eyes.

He clearly remains an intelligent man, but is now immensely frustrated by his life. It has been reported that his life was sustained against his wishes by a hospital in Greece, when he first had the stroke. In 2007, he even gave up taking life-prolonging drugs, albeit, so far, to no effect.

Mr Nicklinson's situation is one that many of us fear. Modern medicine is increasingly able to prolong life, perhaps for decades, in a state that many believe to be intolerable. His case is going through the courts, and may eventually be decided by the Supreme Court.

He desperately wants judges to agree that doctors should be allowed to end his life when he finally decides that it has become intolerable. I do not support a change in the law, but I do support his plea for judicial compassion.

TWENTY years ago, a number of us, inside and outside the Church, struggled with the difficult moral issues raised by the tragic case of Anthony Bland. In the Hillsborough disaster, he had been crushed, deprived of oxygen, with his cortex irreparably damaged, and left in a foetal position without any sensation or consciousness.

Some of us concluded then that modern medicine had, indeed, become too adept at keeping people alive in a Persistent or Permanent Vegetative State (PVS), and that it would be right to let him die instead, by removing his medically assisted nutrition/hydration.

Others were worried at the time about this conclusion, and feared that it crossed a moral line about intentional killing, and/or that it would open up a slippery slope towards full-scale euthanasia. I now think that these critics were half right.

The Law Lords who agreed that Mr Bland's nutrition/hydration should be removed argued that this constituted the removal of a medical intervention rather than intentional killing. For a while, I was convinced by this argument. But subsequent analysis of their judgment has, I believe, shown that the judges really did intend that Mr Bland's life should come to an end.

This has produced considerable legal ambiguity, but I still believe that it was the right and compassionate thing to do in these appalling circumstances. Whenever I talk to church groups about this dilemma, I ask whether any of those present would want to have their lives sustained if they were in a PVS condition. I have never found any who would.

Most of us dread such a prospect, both for ourselves and for our families. Life beyond death is surely preferable for Christians to such an earthly limbo.

With hindsight, however, I think that the critics of withdrawing nutrition from PVS patients were wrong about the slippery slope. Each case of planned withdrawal of nutrition/ hydration from PVS patients is subjected to careful judicial review, and such cases remain comparatively rare.

PVS and locked-in condition have some strong similarities - but also a crucial difference. Mr Bland had no awareness whatsoever of his condition: it was his family who found it intolerable; Mr Nicklinson is fully aware. For him, the prospect is that of an earthly hell, and not simply an earthly limbo. This makes his case both easier and more difficult.

It is easier, because he can state what he wants, whereas Mr Bland's family could only speculate about what he would have wanted (in fact, he was only 16 at the time of the accident, and had probably never heard of PVS).

It is more difficult because, although legally Mr Nicklinson could demand that his nutrition/hydration should cease, understandably he does not want his life to be ended in this distressing way. He argues: "Many people have said that, since I can always starve myself to death, I should, if I find life so intolerable.

"They are right, of course, but they are ignoring the barbaric nature of dying that way, the distress it will cause my family and friends, and the discomfort it will cause me. If that is the best that society can offer, apart from travelling to Switzerland if you are able and can afford it, it has no right to call itself civilised" (The Times, 18 June).

If Mr Nicklinson is allowed to take his case as high as the Supreme Court, the judiciary will surely be concerned to avoid any slippery slope towards euthanasia. It may well insist that it is for Parliament to make laws that allow euthanasia (and so far, neither the House of Lords nor the House of Commons has shown much appetite for this).

Perhaps the Supreme Court will put in place a process of judicial review, similar to that for PVS patients, for each case of locked-in sufferers. It may also decide to interpret the Director of Public Prosecutions's guidelines on assisted dying to include locked-in patients. In whatever way this is resolved legally, I believe that it is right to give Mr Nicklinson our compassionate support.

Again and again, Jesus reached out to the vulnerable, putting compassion first - even before the legal scruples of his time about keeping the sabbath, or not touching those deemed to be ritually impure.

We reached out in compassion to Mr Bland two decades ago, and, surely, we should do so to Mr Nicklinson today.

Canon Robin Gill is Professor of Applied Theology at the University of Kent.