Letter: Thomas Creedon: legal precedent, faith and quality of life
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.rom Mr Christopher Williams
Sir: Your leading article of 2 August "Should we feed Thomas Creedon?" continues the confusion which bedevils debate on this issue, namely the inability of commentators to separate the individual and particular circumstances of this case from the concern that a legal precedent will be set.
The fact that legal precedent will be set cannot be the issue as far as the Creedons are concerned. Legal precedents will continue to be set as long as advances in medical technology result in it being possible to keep people alive who previously would have died. You rightly point out that Con and Fiona Creedon are brave people - far braver than me, because, while I too have a handicapped son, my son's disability (Oliver has Down's Syndrome) has never required me to even imagine, let alone face up to, the awful dilemmas confronting them. But you do not seem to fully comprehend their bravery, despite claiming sympathy for their predicament.
The responsibility for what may or may not happen in the cases of the "thousands of vulnerable people" you refer to must not be imposed on the Creedons. If, as you acknowledge, the Creedons clearly love their son, then surely their attitude towards their son's condition must be of paramount importance in the legal debate. I feel it is insulting to them to suggest that "everyone, including the family, would be better off if this little boy slipped away peacefully".
I do not imagine the Creedons will ever feel better off; at best they will fervently hope that they have done the best that loving, caring parents can do for their child.
Every case will have to be considered on its merits. We can no longer take refuge in simplistic legal precedent. Our technological advance makes simplistic judgement redundant. What is necessary now is a recognition from the legal and medical professions that the basis on which they have previously worked is no longer valid.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Williams
Hampton Hill, Middlesex
2 August
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments