The right to die.

Talk about everything else besides Stratovarius here in English. Please try to put more serious topics here, and silly topics in the Spam section.
Post Reply
User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK
The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:25 pm

This article caught my eye.
'Locked-in syndrome' man's right-to-die case starts


The right-to-die case involves Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Wiltshire, who has locked-in syndrome following a stroke.

He is unable to take his own life and is seeking legal protection for any doctor who helps him end his life.

But the Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would authorise murder and change the law governing it. This legal bid differs from recent right-to-die cases which have focused on assisted suicide.

Instead, Mr Nicklinson's paralysis is so severe that he would have to be killed by someone else, known as euthansia.

The married father-of-two had a stroke in 2005 while on a business trip to Athens, leaving him paralysed, but with a fully-functioning mind. He has told the BBC his life is a "living nightmare" because he cannot speak and needs other people to do everything for him.

He said: "90% of itches have to be endured because by the time someone comes to scratch it and I have laboriously explained where it is, the itch has gone. Now I just put up with them. Or there is the screaming frustration of wanting to make a point but knowing that the only way I can express my opinion, by the board or computer, are useless in normal conversation."

He said he found it impossible to live with the knowledge that he had no way out when life got too much to bear because he was physically unable to take his own life.

"It cannot be acceptable in 21st century Britain that I am denied the right to take my own life just because I am physically handicapped," he said.

'Demeaning'

"We are all individuals and each person deserves an individual solution to his particular circumstances. A one-size-fits-all solution of better care and more of it, such as opponents advocate, is clearly not the answer. The option of assisted dying should be available."

The condition, known as locked-in syndrome, means Mr Nicklinson has to communicate through a special computer. He has argued that his life is "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable".

His legal action was launched to seek an assurance that a doctor could intervene to end his "indignity" and have a common law defence of necessity against any murder charge.

Mr Nicklinson's legal team will argue that the defence of necessity can be used against a murder charge - arguing that the only way to end his suffering is to allow him to die. They will also argue that his case is covered by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which deals with the right to respect for private and family life, our correspondent adds.

The hearing is expected to last four days, although a ruling will not be made until a later date.
What are everyone's thoughts on this? I think a person who is in full possession of their facaulties and able to make decisions should be able to consent to someone ending their life, without that other person being held criminally responsible.

However, this whole thing then raises the spectre of abuse - people could then kill other people and possibly claim that they were asked to. Vulnerable people, such as the elderly or disabled, might even be pressured into accepting suicide by relatives (if the person in question is in possession of a large financial estate, or for other reasons...) and that can't be a good thing.

Where do you stand?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
Southern_Stratofan
Member
Posts:118
Joined:Sat May 05, 2012 4:07 pm

Re: The right to die.

Post by Southern_Stratofan » Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:22 pm

In summary:

My opinion this matter is if a person is still alive, whilst in a state of being completely incapable of communicating with their surroundings in any way possible, then terminating their life would be humanely responsible.

ie: if I became a comatosed vegetable with no possible means of recovering, then id hope to christ id be put out of misery.

User avatar
NeverendingAbyss
Sr. Member
Posts:4840
Joined:Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:41 pm
Location:Betty White will outlive the queen.

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeverendingAbyss » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:37 am

For something that doesn't have a cure, maybe.

I strongly believe in people's free will. If someone doesn't want to live because _______ let him die. It's part of natural selection.

And no, not even trolling. I genuinely dislike suicidal people. Counseling is alright, and in some cases it is imperative (such as rape, witnessing murder, or any sort of brain trauma).

But if he doesn't want to live, it's not a big loss. He's not happy living so let him find happiness in the afterlife.

User avatar
GAGAGO
Sr. Member
Posts:1231
Joined:Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:03 pm
Location:Granada

Re: The right to die.

Post by GAGAGO » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:57 am

:( If you had a sick dog no one would call you a murderer if you let him go to dogheaven. It ought to be the same with people. To die is a part of our life and if there is no life to live it is better if someone you love help you to die.

User avatar
AGAG
Sr. Member
Posts:7857
Joined:Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:04 am
Location:El Salvador

Re: The right to die.

Post by AGAG » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:55 am

Clinics should be established where they would offer painless suicide methods at the reach of the general public.
---...---

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:29 pm

They exist in Switzerland, I know that for sure.

It's just a tricky part of criminal law - under most common law, one can't 'consent' to being killed. The person who actually ends his life will technically be guilty of murder. That's the core of this issue, and a very difficult question for all to consider. Many groups, mostly religious-based ones, seem to be against this and I really cannot understand why.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: The right to die.

Post by miditek » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:50 pm

NeonVomit wrote:They exist in Switzerland, I know that for sure.

It's just a tricky part of criminal law - under most common law, one can't 'consent' to being killed. The person who actually ends his life will technically be guilty of murder. That's the core of this issue, and a very difficult question for all to consider. Many groups, mostly religious-based ones, seem to be against this and I really cannot understand why.
This sounds like one of Himmler's euthanasia programs, but if someone is going to off themselves, then why get a doctor to assist when a .45 ACP or a Glock 9mm will do the trick?

For those that are gun shy, then a bottle of brandy and a handful of Valium would accomplish the task as well.

Doctors have taken an oath to "do no harm", and assisting in a suicide isn't exactly living up to the Hippocratic standard.

Why would religious groups oppose this? For someone that was raised in a Christian home, and not to mention is also a scholar of the law, you seem to have conveniently forgotten the Ten Commandments- which of course was the basis for Mosaic Law.

VI- "Thou shalt not kill"

Translated from ancient Hebrew, it reads "You shall not commit murder" Assisting a gravely ill person in killing their self is certainly participating in a murder, and most Christians that believe that the Bible is true could not do this without being guilty of the sin of murder. Observant Jews are also under the same law.

Why ask such idiotically rhetorical questions when you know full well why many religious people could not be supportive of such concepts without violating one of the core tenants of their faith?
Κύριε ἐλέησον

User avatar
browneyedgirl
Sr. Member
Posts:27239
Joined:Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:00 pm
Location:Starfall
Contact:

Re: The right to die.

Post by browneyedgirl » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:57 pm

I think people should have living wills made to legally tell the medical establishment what the patient wants done when or if they go into a vegetative state. For example, my uncle who died with a brain tumor several years ago requested that he be given oxygen but not to be given any "heroic" resusitation measures. So, he died peacefully in his sleep. My Mother had blood poisoning during her cancer battle and went into a coma, the doc wanted to pull the plug on her but my Dad said to give her 24 more hours, and reluctantly the doctor did so. He upped the dosage of antibiotics and about 19 hours later she came out of her coma. If my Dad had listened to the doc, my Mom would not be here today.

And I think of people who simply do not like certain people in their family and allow them to die. Many abused wives have fallen into this category.

Something to think about.
"Your life is yours, and yours alone. Rise up and live it!"

Bob: I don't believe in God.
Archangel Michael: That's OK, Bob, because He doesn't believe in you, either!~Legion~

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:07 am

miditek wrote:
NeonVomit wrote:They exist in Switzerland, I know that for sure.

It's just a tricky part of criminal law - under most common law, one can't 'consent' to being killed. The person who actually ends his life will technically be guilty of murder. That's the core of this issue, and a very difficult question for all to consider. Many groups, mostly religious-based ones, seem to be against this and I really cannot understand why.
This sounds like one of Himmler's euthanasia programs, but if someone is going to off themselves, then why get a doctor to assist when a .45 ACP or a Glock 9mm will do the trick?

For those that are gun shy, then a bottle of brandy and a handful of Valium would accomplish the task as well.

Doctors have taken an oath to "do no harm", and assisting in a suicide isn't exactly living up to the Hippocratic standard.

Why would religious groups oppose this? For someone that was raised in a Christian home, and not to mention is also a scholar of the law, you seem to have conveniently forgotten the Ten Commandments- which of course was the basis for Mosaic Law.

VI- "Thou shalt not kill"

Translated from ancient Hebrew, it reads "You shall not commit murder" Assisting a gravely ill person in killing their self is certainly participating in a murder, and most Christians that believe that the Bible is true could not do this without being guilty of the sin of murder. Observant Jews are also under the same law.

Why ask such idiotically rhetorical questions when you know full well why many religious people could not be supportive of such concepts without violating one of the core tenants of their faith?
This is about people who wish to end their lives but are not capable of doing it on their own. Gun fetishism has no place in this topic.

I've remembered things like 'be nice to each other', 'arrogance is the path to doom', 'he who is without sin may cast the first stone', 'turning the other cheek' and so forth. Y'know, the stuff that you seem to have no concept of, judging by what you post. The stupid things in any religion that I disagree with I simply ignore, that's the great thing about being non-religious. Give it a try, it's very liberating. As for the rest of it, if people want to believe in it and it doesn't harm anyone else, they can go ahead and believe what they like. What pisses me off is when they try to force their beliefs on other people.

Thou shalt not kill? This coming from someone who claims all drug dealers should be executed on sight without trial? So every person being killed is to be treated in exactly the same way, right? Or are you going to start reeling off a list of exceptions now which fit into your own views? Convenient, isn't it? What about self-defence, or soldiers in war, or the guy who shot Osama bin Laden, or turning a clinically dead person's life support off? How about this guy? 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' really isn't so black and white now is it? That's why in criminal law we have murder, culpable homicide, a bunch of things like various types of manslaughter, diminished responsibility, etc. because one person ending another's life is not always as cut and dried as something supposedly carved into a mythical stone tablet thousands of years ago.

You're a supporter of the death penalty, correct? Why should a convicted murderer be excecuted, legally, by the state, yet someone who has good reasons to like the guy in the article, not be allowed to die? The convicted murderer probably doesn't want to die, yet the state deems his crimes are serious enough to warrant it and will execute him regardless - the guy locked into his own body DOES want to die, and never hurt anyone, and yet you believe should not be allowed to. Does that not seem incredibly twisted and perverse? And if you believe in the death penalty, yet are against assisted suicide, doesn't that seem like a massive self-contradiction?

And your comparison to the Nazis is not very well thought-out, is it? The matter of consent is what is key here, Holocaust victims were not consenting whereas people who have ended their life via assisted suicide ARE consenting and indeed demanded this right.

And most core and central to your whole argument: what if the person in question HAS no religion or faith? What if they wish to die because their life is unbearable and they are unconcerned what God would think because to them God is nothing but an idea and does not exist? Why should people who have no faith in anything be bound by the rules of those who do?

This is a question of law and where the boundaries of consent lie, not religion, plus what regulations exist and how they may potentially be abused - that is a serious question. What an imaginary sky being would say is not.

In any case, if someone's religion does not permit them to carry out such an act, the entire discussion is moot and they shouldn't even consider it in the first place. THAT is why I don't understand why religious groups get angry about it - it's none of their business. That's like asking deaf people what they think of dubstep, or someone blind from birth what they think of Degas' paintings, or a vegetarian how they'd like their steak cooked.

If the people involved have no faith then those who believe shouldn't be trying to force their beliefs onto those people and restrict them from doing as they wish, especially if it will not affect them in any way. Keep in mind, people who are pro-gay marriage or pro-assisted suicide are not trying to force these things on anyone who doesn't want them or agree with them. They simply want to be allowed to do what they believe is right, and most crucially of all, does not harm anyone else in any way. That's what is confusing about the anti- people. You cannot force belief on other people. That never ends well.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
mayhem-for-all
Sr. Member
Posts:1907
Joined:Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:25 pm

Re: The right to die.

Post by mayhem-for-all » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:19 am

VI- "Thou shalt not kill"

Translated from ancient Hebrew, it reads "You shall not commit murder"
And murder in this connection meant killing a Jew. Otherwise their own God would have sinned.

+ 10 commandments are overrated...

And now that I started:
@NeverendingAbyss
I strongly believe in people's free will
Such thing as Free Will doesn't exist. If we define it this way: If you are the reason for your actions you have Free Will. If you have a better definition go ahead and tell me one.
If you are the only reason for your own actions then you don't think about others or the results of your actions. This could be defined as psychotic. A healthy person always makes decisions based on the reality and therefore seeks the reasons for his actions outside his own mind. I do not take the garbage out because of myself. The Garbage make me do it.

Back to Miditek
VI- "Thou shalt not kill"

Translated from ancient Hebrew, it reads "You shall not commit murder" Assisting a gravely ill person in killing their self is certainly participating in a murder, and most Christians that believe that the Bible is true could not do this without being guilty of the sin of murder. Observant Jews are also under the same law.

Why ask such idiotically rhetorical questions when you know full well why many religious people could not be supportive of such concepts without violating one of the core tenants of their faith?
Oh please. Religious laws have never been a reason to do anything because people only find the ones out of their holy books which support the view they already have.

Jesus says in the New Testament that a slave who doesn't obey his master should be hit several times but no one ever brings that up. The Old Testament has a lot of rules. It even denies blind people from going to church. No one ever brings that one up either.

A good example of this is killing the staff of abortion clinics.

And finally @NeonVomit
Glad to see there is someone out there who has not lost his mind.

User avatar
brought2ubyletterC
Sr. Member
Posts:4819
Joined:Mon Mar 04, 2002 3:15 am
Location:A Pacific Ocean Soul (California, United States)
Contact:

Re: The right to die.

Post by brought2ubyletterC » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:33 am

What are everyone's thoughts on this? I think a person who is in full possession of their facaulties and able to make decisions should be able to consent to someone ending their life, without that other person being held criminally responsible.

However, this whole thing then raises the spectre of abuse - people could then kill other people and possibly claim that they were asked to. Vulnerable people, such as the elderly or disabled, might even be pressured into accepting suicide by relatives (if the person in question is in possession of a large financial estate, or for other reasons...) and that can't be a good thing.
I have always believed that we should be responsible for our own lives; the right to live---and die, if possible---on our own terms.

There are two sides to this, and you bring up a great point about greedy families pressuring a relative to get into assisted suicide because "it's for their own good", or convincing a doctor that they are sick and need to have euthanasia.

In fact, in this situation, I think of my mom's boss, who died earlier this year. My mom was her caretaker, her employee who got paid to make sure she was taken care of. The woman was extremely rich, so my mom got paid very well. However, the woman had a son who---I can't say it any nicer---had a hard-on to get his hands on his mom's fortune and basically wanted her dead.

Since his mom would not "just die already", he did everything short of kill her himself. He came in and declared her mentally unstable, threw her in an old folks' home, and fired my mom (my mom is in a legal battle right now with him for the pay she was supposed to get and never did). The woman was anything but mentally unstable, but once someone is declared as such, whoever is in charge in that person's stead becomes their legal "voice", which in her case was the son. So needless to say, her pleas of "I want to go home, I'm not crazy" were not heard by him. Just a few months later, she died in the old folks' home.

Why do I tell this story when it has nothing to do with assisted suicide? Because something like this is a bad scenario of what could happen if euthanasia were legalized. Do I still want it to be legalized? Yes, but I'm just pointing out some bad things that can come of it. So there need to be some laws laid down for how this is to be done, and that it should be only in the case that the person has a terminal illness and have good use of their mental faculties (not declared insane, depressed, or suicidal). It shouldn't be just for people who want to die because they are old, and relatives should not have a say in whether or not said person should undergo euthanasia. Otherwise you get more of greedy assh*les like this killing off perfectly healthy people because they can't wait their turn to get their hands on money that isn't really theirs.

As someone who has lived with a disability since birth, I would want the right to end my life when the pain becomes too unbearable and I could no longer do the few things that I am capable of. I would not want to linger on without use of my mind, or if I could no longer be useful or contribute anything to this world. I think it's the humane thing to do. And as already pointed out, it's humane to euthanize an animal when they reach this point, but not a human? Do we not deserve the same compassion?

User avatar
AGAG
Sr. Member
Posts:7857
Joined:Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:04 am
Location:El Salvador

Re: The right to die.

Post by AGAG » Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:19 am

Wouldn't it be our call if we decide to go to Jesus at some particular age?
---...---

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:09 pm

brought2ubyletterC wrote:Why do I tell this story when it has nothing to do with assisted suicide? Because something like this is a bad scenario of what could happen if euthanasia were legalized. Do I still want it to be legalized? Yes, but I'm just pointing out some bad things that can come of it. So there need to be some laws laid down for how this is to be done, and that it should be only in the case that the person has a terminal illness and have good use of their mental faculties (not declared insane, depressed, or suicidal). It shouldn't be just for people who want to die because they are old, and relatives should not have a say in whether or not said person should undergo euthanasia. Otherwise you get more of greedy assh*les like this killing off perfectly healthy people because they can't wait their turn to get their hands on money that isn't really theirs.
Exactly, that's the big problem with this situation. Unfortunately, the awful story you told is not unique or even rare. The amount of things you hear about family members doing horrible things to each other purely over matters of inheritence or even just petty bitchiness is shocking and is the real problem. If legislation is enacted, there has to be a lot of safety nets put in place to prevent vulnerable people being forced into things like this. It's not an easy question to answer. Maybe a list of conditions which would qualify for consideration? There's a danger of this whole process becoming overcomplicated, but just like the justice system, it needs to be complicated to ensure that the closest thing to a correct decision can be reached. If it's someone who is able to communicate and express themselves properly, and there appears to be no duress or undue influence, then it's a pretty easy decision to reach. When things are less clear-cut, there arises the potential for tragic mistakes to occurr.
As someone who has lived with a disability since birth, I would want the right to end my life when the pain becomes too unbearable and I could no longer do the few things that I am capable of. I would not want to linger on without use of my mind, or if I could no longer be useful or contribute anything to this world. I think it's the humane thing to do. And as already pointed out, it's humane to euthanize an animal when they reach this point, but not a human? Do we not deserve the same compassion?
Of course... plus the animal can't asked to be euthanised. At the end of the day, it's your life and that's what matters above all else. It's good to have your input on this matter, I honestly admire your courage.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
brought2ubyletterC
Sr. Member
Posts:4819
Joined:Mon Mar 04, 2002 3:15 am
Location:A Pacific Ocean Soul (California, United States)
Contact:

Re: The right to die.

Post by brought2ubyletterC » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:27 pm

Exactly, that's the big problem with this situation. Unfortunately, the awful story you told is not unique or even rare. The amount of things you hear about family members doing horrible things to each other purely over matters of inheritence or even just petty bitchiness is shocking and is the real problem. If legislation is enacted, there has to be a lot of safety nets put in place to prevent vulnerable people being forced into things like this. It's not an easy question to answer. Maybe a list of conditions which would qualify for consideration? There's a danger of this whole process becoming overcomplicated, but just like the justice system, it needs to be complicated to ensure that the closest thing to a correct decision can be reached. If it's someone who is able to communicate and express themselves properly, and there appears to be no duress or undue influence, then it's a pretty easy decision to reach. When things are less clear-cut, there arises the potential for tragic mistakes to occur.
Nope, sadly it's not a rare case. In fact, around the time this was all going on with my mom, another friend of ours just ended a legal battle with one of his relatives over a very similar situation. In their case, the grandfather died (he and the grandmother had lots of money and property), and one of the sons was so anxious to get his hands on his inheritance that he didn't hesitate to put his mom in the old folks' home (where she also died), kicked my friend out of the house (where he was staying with his son, where they both helped take care of the grandparents) and started giving away his dad's property before the estate was even settled! My friend was this guy's nephew, so it took the family about 2 years before everything got squared away and the uncle got his deserved punishment. So I told my mom that she should probably prepare for a long court case too, considering what my friend just went through in his family.

It just makes me sick to see these things, considering that in my family, my grandmother was sick with cancer for nearly 5 years and we all did everything we could to make her life comfortable. I'm not saying we are a perfect family---we certainly have our shortcomings elsewhere---but we could have never imagined doing something like that to our loved ones. Maybe it's because we aren't a rich family and didn't have any money to fight over after she died. Who knows?

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:07 pm

Update on the case: after being rejected by the High Court on the grounds of jurisdiction (basically, 'we can't decide on this, it has to go up the ladder'), the claimant died of natural causes - refusing food. He had to starve himself to death in order to control his destiny.

I guess it's good to know he's at peace, but this question remains. It was a massive question, and it could possibly have changed the definition of what murder is, so it could be expected that it would be sent to the Supreme Court or even raised as new legislation in Parliament... but until then, other people will suffer, it would seem.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
icecab21
Sr. Member
Posts:3520
Joined:Mon May 19, 2008 8:59 pm

Re: The right to die.

Post by icecab21 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:46 am

life belongs to the individual, not government, not a made up supernatural friend. i thought there was also supposed to be a separation of supernatural speacial friends and government.

User avatar
Southern_Stratofan
Member
Posts:118
Joined:Sat May 05, 2012 4:07 pm

Re: The right to die.

Post by Southern_Stratofan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:08 am

icecab21 wrote:life belongs to the individual, not government, not a made up supernatural friend. i thought there was also supposed to be a separation of supernatural speacial friends and government.
Government uses supernatural friends to justify why they want to do our thinking for us.

It would be good if the ideologies separated eachother, so they wouldnt be eachothers scapegoat. But the reality is that we must ignore what is being forced upon us. And make up our own minds and perceptions in life. I for one, am in complete disagreeance with societal trends.
Im searching for something. I do not know what, nor do I know what will happen when I find it.

User avatar
GAGAGO
Sr. Member
Posts:1231
Joined:Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:03 pm
Location:Granada

Re: The right to die.

Post by GAGAGO » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:49 pm

:) Doctors have secret codes for ending life of sick people. It is not called murder when someone only have some painful days left and huge amounts of morphia put them to sleep. Sometimes the doc talks to the relatives but not always.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:31 am

icecab21 wrote:life belongs to the individual, not government, not a made up supernatural friend. i thought there was also supposed to be a separation of supernatural speacial friends and government.
The High Court's decision had nothing to do with religion, though. It was an issue of jurisdiction and them deciding they weren't in a position to pass judgement on the matter, because as GAGAO said, some people may take matters into their own hands... and people can be murdered even if they DON'T want to die, for reasons of inheritance or relatives just getting tired of looking after them.

What was being asked of the court was to change the definition of what murder is. Which isn't a subject to be treated lightly... that sort of thing should only be decided by the Supreme Court or Parliament, in the form of new legislation.

If anything, I hope this whole issue results in the matter being raised in Parliament and maybe even some new discussion on changing the law coming from it.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
icecab21
Sr. Member
Posts:3520
Joined:Mon May 19, 2008 8:59 pm

Re: The right to die.

Post by icecab21 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:28 am

i don't think gaurdians can decide someone wants to commite suicide for the person they are representing, only the person can decide to commit suicide.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:38 am

icecab21 wrote:i don't think gaurdians can decide someone wants to commite suicide for the person they are representing, only the person can decide to commit suicide.
Exactly... therein lies the problem. How can we be absolutely certain that it is the person's true wish and they are not being pressured into it? People here are mostly scare of the possibility that we end up with another Harold Shipman. As a reminder, he was the one of the most prolific serial killers in history, a rural doctor who killed over 250 elderly patients with morphine overdoses and justifying it to himself as 'doing them a favour'. Since he was the one signing their death certificates and carrying out the postmortems, he went undetected for a long time. If legislation introduced is too loose, who knows what might happen?

Anyway, here is the judgement, if anyone wants to get into it. It's not overly long, around 40 pages or so, and very thought-provoking. For example, here's an interesting paragraph:
54; 7.7 Under the current law, the compassionate motives of the ‘mercy’ killer are in themselves never capable of providing a basis for a partial excuse. Some would say that this is unfortunate. On this view, the law affords more recognition to other less, or at least no more, understandable emotions such as anger (provocation) and fear (self-defence). Others would say that recognising a partial excuse of acting out of compassion would be dangerous. Just as a defence of necessity “can very easily become simply a mask for anarchy”, so the concept of ‘compassion’ - vague in itself - could very easily become a cover for selfish or ignoble reasons for killing, not least because people often act out of mixed motives.”
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
icecab21
Sr. Member
Posts:3520
Joined:Mon May 19, 2008 8:59 pm

Re: The right to die.

Post by icecab21 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:18 am

on the other hand, we could just go to eugenics and death panels. or all decisions can be made by a supercomputer. having all property and people belong to the government will solve such things as people murdering over inheritance as all will belong to the government and it will be redistributed as planned by the central planner with the help of the supercomputer.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: The right to die.

Post by NeonVomit » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:50 am

Of course nothing could possibly ever go wrong with a plan like that, right?
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
brought2ubyletterC
Sr. Member
Posts:4819
Joined:Mon Mar 04, 2002 3:15 am
Location:A Pacific Ocean Soul (California, United States)
Contact:

Re: The right to die.

Post by brought2ubyletterC » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:47 pm

Everything has flaws; no law will ever be perfect or without loopholes. The best we can do is try to make the rules as clear-cut as possible.

Post Reply