What do youse make of the decision today to refuse this guy the right to die?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680)
A man paralysed from the neck down has lost his High Court case to allow doctors to end his life without fear of prosecution.
Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, communicates by blinking and has described his life as a "living nightmare" since a stroke in 2005.
Mr Nicklinson said he would appeal against the decision.
The case went further than previous challenges to the law in England and Wales on assisted suicide and murder.
Another man, known only as Martin, who is 47, also lost his case to end his life with medical help.
'Misery'
Father-of-two Mr Nicklinson was left paralysed with locked-in syndrome after a catastrophic stroke while on a business trip to Athens.
He said he was "devastated" by the court's decision.
If he has or can raise the cash, he should seek out assisted suicide outside of Britain.
Its a difficult issue all right (only in the sense that it could be corrupted), but no one should have to live like that against their will.
Adolf Hitler wanted to breed the perfect race, and kill off the sick, wounded etc etc.
Anyway, despite the suffering I dont think I could just terminate anyone's life. But perhaps it is easier for soldiers who are used to pulling the tirgger.
Ridiculous decision! There is no ambiguity around this case the guy may as well be dead and he's a drain on his family and the NHS.
Whatever about the moral argument I think that the world is not black and white and this case on its merits should mean the guy is allowed to die peacefully.
Quote from: Orior on August 17, 2012, 12:33:29 AM
Adolf Hitler wanted to breed the perfect race, and kill off the sick, wounded etc etc.
Anyway, despite the suffering I dont think I could just terminate anyone's life. But perhaps it is easier for soldiers who are used to pulling the tirgger.
But he is of sound mind and choosing to end it. Hitler's victkmes didnt have a choice. Would agree with J70 but would not like to see any blanket legislation - each case would need judged on its merits otherwise sure to be abused.
Quote from: Orior on August 17, 2012, 12:33:29 AM
Adolf Hitler wanted to breed the perfect race, and kill off the sick, wounded etc etc.
Anyway, despite the suffering I dont think I could just terminate anyone's life. But perhaps it is easier for soldiers who are used to pulling the tirgger.
I think I've read this sentence a few times but I am struggling to get my head around it. It seems like your saying that you'd acknowledge the suffering they were enduring, but you'd put your own comfort first and not theirs. I'm not having a go or anything but I just find that to be a tough viewpoint to empathise with.
Quote from: screenexile on August 17, 2012, 12:40:02 AM
Ridiculous decision! There is no ambiguity around this case the guy may as well be dead and he's a drain on his family and the NHS.
I'm not sure the theory that he may be a drain on his family(in your opinion) or the health service should come into as a reason that this guy should be allowed to die.
I agree with Tony insofar as the man is of sound mind and if it's his decision and his alone then yes I agree he should probably be allowed to end his suffering.
What I would be worried about is the precedent this could set and what about those who are both physically and mentally disabled those that can't make such a decision themselves, is it ok to end their life just because they MAY be a burden to their family or the health service?
No laoislad, absolutely not and you're absolutely right. If such considerations made their way into the mind of lawmakers it'd be nazism, part deux.
That shouldn't be a factor, but the man should be allowed to die. The right to self determination.
Quote from: Orior on August 17, 2012, 12:33:29 AM
Adolf Hitler wanted to breed the perfect race, and kill off the sick, wounded etc etc.
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/Blog_Godwins_Law.jpg)
Don't they allow assisted suicide in the Netherlands? If he could get himself over there he might have a chance.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 17, 2012, 05:01:44 AM
Don't they allow assisted suicide in the Netherlands? If he could get himself over there he might have a chance.
Think you're getting confused with this place...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_(assisted_dying_organisation)
However, aren't there legal issues about facilitating a person to access this organisation e.g. organising their transport to Switzerland?
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.
Quote from: deiseach on August 17, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.
Yes currently as the law stands its illegal to assist this man in ending his own life.
legally i'd say this is a mine field to legislate as every case would need reviewed on its own merits for fear of a Harold Shipman type character about signing off people as of sound mind when they're maybe far from it.
There have been a few interesting cases in England with regard to this. One in particular that stood out was a 23 year old rugby player who got spinal injuries when a scrum collapsed and he was paralysed from the neck down. If I remember rightly the judge was very lenient on the mother in the whole thing.
It's a very difficult circumstance really. You set precedents etc if you allow it but if you don't you have people living in misery so you can't entirely win.
I wouldn't like to be the guy who gives the final injection that's for sure.
Morality and legality don't always go hand in hand.
Morally, yes I think it would be better to let this poor man make his own decision to end his life. It is morally right to let him die on his own terms rather than forcing him to endure a long slow death. The biggest problem with that as I see would be to find someone ethical and capable of assisting him in his task. How would you convince a doctor to do this?
Legally, I think it's wrong and rightly so. If there was a law which permitted assisted suicide in certain circumstances it would open a whole can of worms. There would be extenuating circumstances in some instances and others where the perception of one person may be that it is morally right to end the life of a disabled person and the law could protect them.
There's certainly no right and wrong to this IMO.
If there was any law to come in, it should be one which dictates that such cases should be heard before a judge and that the judge has the legal authority to approve assisted suicide given the evidence supplied. So in this case, a man of sound mind wanting to end his life could be permitted, but someone who is not of sound mind or who's family find it too much of a burden to look after a disabled family member it would not be permitted as it is not within the persons ability to make their own choice.
Quote from: tbrick18 on August 17, 2012, 10:15:23 AM
Morality and legality don't always go hand in hand.
Morally, yes I think it would be better to let this poor man make his own decision to end his life. It is morally right to let him die on his own terms rather than forcing him to endure a long slow death. The biggest problem with that as I see would be to find someone ethical and capable of assisting him in his task. How would you convince a doctor to do this?
Legally, I think it's wrong and rightly so. If there was a law which permitted assisted suicide in certain circumstances it would open a whole can of worms. There would be extenuating circumstances in some instances and others where the perception of one person may be that it is morally right to end the life of a disabled person and the law could protect them.
There's certainly no right and wrong to this IMO.
If there was any law to come in, it should be one which dictates that such cases should be heard before a judge and that the judge has the legal authority to approve assisted suicide given the evidence supplied. So in this case, a man of sound mind wanting to end his life could be permitted, but someone who is not of sound mind or who's family find it too much of a burden to look after a disabled family member it would not be permitted as it is not within the persons ability to make their own choice.
+1
The man is of sound mind. I'm sure as well as just wanting to die he also reflects on the drain (emotional, physical and financial) he is on his family. I know I would think that way.
If I was in such a situation id want to go, and let them have whatever organs can be saved for others.
In terms of ending a person's suffering, I think there is a big difference between switching a machine off to do it, and switching a machine on to do it.
Quote from: tbrick18 on August 17, 2012, 10:15:23 AM
Morality and legality don't always go hand in hand.
Morally, yes I think it would be better to let this poor man make his own decision to end his life. It is morally right to let him die on his own terms rather than forcing him to endure a long slow death. The biggest problem with that as I see would be to find someone ethical and capable of assisting him in his task. How would you convince a doctor to do this?
Legally, I think it's wrong and rightly so. If there was a law which permitted assisted suicide in certain circumstances it would open a whole can of worms. There would be extenuating circumstances in some instances and others where the perception of one person may be that it is morally right to end the life of a disabled person and the law could protect them.
There's certainly no right and wrong to this IMO.
If there was any law to come in, it should be one which dictates that such cases should be heard before a judge and that the judge has the legal authority to approve assisted suicide given the evidence supplied. So in this case, a man of sound mind wanting to end his life could be permitted, but someone who is not of sound mind or who's family find it too much of a burden to look after a disabled family member it would not be permitted as it is not within the persons ability to make their own choice.
Taking into account Fionntamhnach's observations as well, this is about the best solution I've seen proposed.
Orior - sophistry, I suggest.
Should assisted suicide ever be made law, it may well raise another interesting dilemma.
How will society judge those people who choose to end their lives in comparison to those who do not faced with similar circumstances.
Let's use Stephen Hawkings as an extreme example of how human spirit can overcome unimaginable adversity and then look at Mr. Nicklinson's case whereby he wants to die.
If we do get past the stage whereby assisted suicide is legally possible, will the person choosing to die be judged against those who do not.
No doubt we will get into an even deeper mire of who is the weaker and who is the stronger.
Quote from: deiseach on August 17, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.
I don't think the legality of it is the issue. The point of a thread called "morality" is whether or not it's moral.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 17, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
Quote from: deiseach on August 17, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.
I don't think the legality of it is the issue. The point of a thread called "morality" is whether or not it's moral.
I got that. tbrick18 captures my position on the morality of it, hence the +1
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 17, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
Quote from: deiseach on August 17, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
The judge made the correct decision. The law is unambiguous - if you assist someone in killing themselves, you will be investigated for murder. If you feel sufficiently exercised by this decision, lobby your MP/TD to get the law changed.
I don't think the legality of it is the issue. The point of a thread called "morality" is whether or not it's moral.
Well, we were asked by the OP "
What do youse make of the decision today to refuse this guy the right to die?"
The court did not refuse him a right to die.
We can appreciate that the guy has a strong compelling case, a moral compassionate case, to decide to end his own life, but he can't, he's physically incapable of doing that. He went to the court to make a case for the judge to enable a 3rd party to end his life. The law does not allow for that.
And one cannot expect a loved one to administer the final heart-rending prescription. So the law does need to take account of this human condition. When a horse is seriously injured in a steeplechase we have witnessed (the vet?) administer the humane execution, it is hypocritical to refuse a human the same act of humanity. It is a compassionate act of mercy.
And just as an addendum, in my experience with medics I have found all to be totally dedicated to prolonging a person's life and they are duty bound to use all means to do so, regardless of the patients age and health condition. I do not see much of an issue for a medically defined condition to be become an acceptable standard for an euthanasia intervention.
I'd see the equivalent of a coroner's court as more suitable to review each case on its merits.
The law is currently wrong on this issue. The 'wedge argument' is the only thing preventing a change. Its not rocket science to put the appropriate safegaurds in place. I believe in the future people will look back in amazement that we forced our fellow humans to suffer in this way. As reguards this mans situation I cant believe that if he really wanted to die a family member wouldn't assist. I would do it in a flash for 1 of mine, the legal consequences would be an irrelevance to me.
We'd think nothing (of note) of putting a dog down.
Quote from: ONeill on August 17, 2012, 10:20:43 PM
We'd think nothing (of note) of putting a dog down.
Some would think nothing (of note) of putting a dog down.
Quote from: firestarter on August 17, 2012, 10:02:13 PM
As reguards this mans situation I cant believe that if he really wanted to die a family member wouldn't assist. I would do it in a flash for 1 of mine, the legal consequences would be an irrelevance to me.
I think it's difficult to say what you would do yourself in such a situation and how you would handle the emotional consequences of such an act, regardless of the loved one's condition. The wife of this man does not want to do it.
This man doesn't want his life to end yet, he wanted the option of a having a medically induced termination should he so decide and wanted a legal decision that the medics would not be charged with murder.
However, a doctor can prescribe a 'great' dose of drugs to relieve 'great' pain, even if that act kills the patient.
I think it's difficult to say what you would do yourself in such a situation and how you would handle the emotional consequences of such an act, regardless of the loved one's condition. The wife of this man does not want to do it.
This man doesn't want his life to end yet, he wanted the option of a having a medically induced termination should he so decide and wanted a legal decision that the medics would not be charged with murder.
However, a doctor can prescribe a 'great' dose of drugs to relieve 'great' pain, even if that act kills the patient.
[/quote]
I know what I would do in that situation. As regards the emotional consequences ,that is why the law needs to be changed so someone doesnt have to go through that, but for myself it wouldnt be a consideration. I heard his wife speaking yesterday and she said it has got to the point where he does in fact want to die.
Tony Nicholson has passed away. No further details at the minute. I wonder was it natural causes or will there be more to it?
Quote from: omagh_gael on August 22, 2012, 11:52:58 AM
Tony Nicholson has passed away. No further details at the minute. I wonder was it natural causes or will there be more to it?
Well may he rest in peace.
And if there does happen to be an afterlife after this world I hope he is free of all the suffering and pain he endured here on earth.
I have always been a supporter of assisted suicide. I think when someone has a terminal illness, they should have the right and the option to die with dignity in a manner of their own choosing. I looked after my father for 18 months as he died a horrible death with Motor Neurone Disease. While he never considered assisted suicide I know for sure I would have done everything if he had of had wished to go down that road. I would go to jail if thats what it took. Plus, I would have had no moral issue with it either.
Couldnt agree more 'give her dixie' and theres clearly few people better qualified to talk on the issue than yourself. I think someone must have intervened in that poor mans case today.
Quote from: firestarter on August 22, 2012, 10:15:14 PM
Couldnt agree more 'give her dixie'
+1
with the caveat of not having the experience of having been through it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/barbara-wise-john-wise-mercy-killing-hospital-shooting_n_1772264.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/barbara-wise-john-wise-mercy-killing-hospital-shooting_n_1772264.html)
A recent case from Ohio along similar lines (similar, not the same). Ohio man shot his wife in the head in her hospital bed after she had suffered a stroke. Media bites are labeling it a mercy killing, and while we will never know what agreement they had between them, well he's being charged with murder all the same.