Euthanasia

[OddJob]

Having read about this poor guy, it's another example imo of why euthanasia should be legalised:

 

Murder should never be legal

 

The plight of Tony Nicklinson is harrowing. He has 'locked-in' syndrome. Except for his eyes and eyelids, he has suffered the catastrophic loss of control of all the voluntary muscles in his body. He can't talk; he can't wash; he is utterly reliant on his immediate family and carers to meet his most basic needs.

 

 

In last week's Dispatches on Channel 4, the sight of Tony's supine body being hoisted off and onto his commode and his bed provides as stark an image of human dependency as it is possible to imagine. This has been his situation ever since he suffered a disastrous stroke on a Greek holiday seven years ago. He has had enough. He wants the option of an elective death.

 

The trouble is that the law in this country sets strict limits on people's power to choose when and how to die. While it allows people to die at their own hands, Tony is far too disabled to commit suicide, even if some form of active assistance were legally available to him. The unpalatable truth is that his wish can only come true if somebody agrees to kill him which, without lawful excuse, would be murder.

 

Mr Nicklinson is going to court in the hope of finding that excuse. The High Court agreed a few months ago to hear his arguments in full, and now three senior judges are sitting to decide whether they are persuaded to change the law sufficiently to grant his wish.

 

That the High Court decided that the case could be heard at all was startling. After all recent attempts to change the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia by court and parliamentary means have repeatedly failed. Indeed, the courts themselves have stated time-and-again that any change in this ethically highly-charged area of the law is not a matter for them but for legislation. Nevertheless, Tony Nicklinson is running two arguments which he hopes will persuade the courts to look on his case favourably.

 

The first is an extension of the common law principle of "necessity". It was accepted until recently that necessity was no defence to a charge of murder. This was established beyond doubt in a famous Victorian legal case in which two castaways were found guilty of murder for cannibalising a dying cabin boy in order to avoid starvation.

 

Then, in 2000, the courts held that necessity could furnish doctors with a defence to murder in the unique case of separation surgery which required the killing of one infant conjoined twin to save the other. Tony Nicklinson wants to stretch that precedent to cover his situation. He says he necessarily requires somebody to kill him in order to be delivered of the intolerable life which he is otherwise powerless to address.

 

His other argument is that the current law infringes his human rights of autonomy and dignity under the European Convention.

 

On Dispatches, the encounter between Tony Nicklinson and Lord Falconer, passionate advocate of a more liberal assisted suicide law, was enthralling. Lord Falconer believes that a clear bright line needs to be drawn where murder is concerned. We are all equal under the law where the right not to be killed is concerned, he contends. To blur the distinction between murder and other crimes would place the vulnerable at risk.

 

However, Falconer was transparently uneasy when Nicklinson spelt out the implications of his apparent inflexibility: a life - upwards of 30 years perhaps - consigned to utter, helpless, dependence on others and the 'indignities' implied by such reliance. "How would you feel if you were in my position?"

 

There is a wise saying in legal circles: "Hard cases make bad law". It recognises that to allow the tragic circumstances of a particular individual to influence the way the law is cast can have damaging social effects. There sometimes has to be unqualified rules in order embed values in society.

 

To enshrine definite laws against murder is to say - Gandalf-like - "You shall not pass!" It is to say a person's life is precious, whatever they themselves may think about their situation. It is to affirm that a person's being a living presence in the world is of inestimable value. It is to say "You matter", even if others, who should know better, say in effect "Because in your own eyes you don't matter any longer, we are willing to support you in your assessment".

 

What is often taken as a compassionate response to another's suffering may in fact be a subtle and covert form of abandonment, which, while understandable, is wholly unacceptable in a civilised society.

 

There is a profound moral intuition that to act to bring about the death of another is incontrovertibly wrong even if logical analysis makes it difficult to distinguish from "letting die". This is why I hope the courts will look Tony in the eye -albeit with great mental unease - and say firmly "No, no, no".

Discuss

[tommo1903]

Of course it should be legalised.

 

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

[NorthernLights24]

I think it would be good to legalise euthanasia as long as proper and strict checks and balances are put in place to ensure any such system can't be abused or taken advantage of.

 

We put down animals due to suffering and quality of life issues yet we expect people to suffer till the very end. I think many of us will have witnessed someone close to us suffering due to a terminal illness. If that person wished to end their suffering early then while it might be difficult at first I'd fully understand why and realise it would be for the best.

 

As I mentioned at the start we'd need a system with checks and balances. You'd want to make sure that the person fully understood the choice and it was 100% their choice and they weren't be pressured or taken advantage of.

[K-9]

Of course it should be legalised.

 

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

Pretty much this

[Big Man]

Euthanasia should be legalised - and an independent Scotland should lead the way in it.

 

The defeat of Margo Macdonald's private members bill was tragedy for common sense. The consultation period for the latest iteration of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill, has just ended.

 

Implicit in the idea of a democratic society is the ability of the individual to make free choices without interference (provided that wider society isn't harmed by them). To restrict the ability of sane and rational people to make such decisions is an act of immense barbarism, plane and simple.

 

In short, it's everything to do with the individual and (subject to certain safeguards) fuck all to do with the state. We shouldn't even need to have a discussion, the article 2 right to life should go hand in hand with the right to a peaceful and dignified death (if you so choose).

 

Patrick Harvie sums up my position quite nicely:

 

For any person to take controlat the end of their own life, on their own terms, may be regretted and grievedover and may be distressing and traumatic for other people, but I cannot seewhy it should be criminal, even if that person needs to ask for help fromsomeone who is willing to give it in a context of care.

 

Many people have argued thatthe law must protect people against the risk that they might feel pressure tomake a choice that they do not really want to make or that they would nototherwise make. That is a genuine concern, but let us remember that by rejectingthe bill we would leave people in exactly that position. People who wish tomake one choice would be told that they may not. They would not be allowed toask for help; they would certainly not be given it. People who wish to make thechoice would be told that they must either go abroad to do it, if they have themoney and ability to do so, or must risk criminalising the friends, family orothers from whom they seek help.

 

Does that respect anyone'sautonomy? Does that protect people from the pressure that they come under tomake a choice that they find intolerable and that they do not wish to make? Therisk that someone could come under pressure to end their life prematurely whenthat is not their preference is very serious and we should not take it lightly,but nor should we take lightly the serious risk, and the reality, that peopleare under pressure to make the other choice when they would wish to take theoption of assisted suicide.

 

Some people will no doubtcontinue to travel overseas to make the choice. My final comment is that theabsence of any vociferous call for those people to be chased down andprosecuted for travelling overseas for an illegal purpose suggests to me thatwe do not consider those people to be criminals. We do not consider them to bepeople who pose a threat to others or wider society. If we did, as for traveloverseas for other illegal purposes, we would prosecute them. We do not, so letus stop treating them as criminals."

[Jigot]

Of course it should be legalised.

 

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

This.

 

I've watched loved ones riddled with cancer,the fear at first, then then the agony.The agony in their eyes,the agony in your heart as you watch them turn into husks of their former selves.Then the drugs kill their agony while your's goes on until they're gone,but your haunted by the thought of maybe they would rather had not gone through it all.

All I know it would be a brave person to ask for Euthanasia to be administered,and an equally brave person to carry it out.

[muttondressedaslamb]

Euthanasia should be legalised - and an independent Scotland should lead the way in it.

 

The defeat of Margo Macdonald's private members bill was tragedy for common sense. The consultation period for the latest iteration of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill, has just ended.

 

Implicit in the idea of a democratic society is the ability of the individual to make free choices without interference (provided that wider society isn't harmed by them). To restrict the ability of sane and rational people to make such decisions is an act of immense barbarism, plane and simple.

 

In short, it's everything to do with the individual and (subject to certain safeguards) fuck all to do with the state. We shouldn't even need to have a discussion, the article 2 right to life should go hand in hand with the right to a peaceful and dignified death (if you so choose).

 

Patrick Harvie sums up my position quite nicely:

 

 

Spot on Big Man. It's disgusting that we do not have this in law yet.

[phoenix]

I'm all for it , I'll hud on for as long as I could because I like it here but if one loses to much control over essential bodily functions then death should be assisted.

 

It's only human.

 

I'd like a nice , pleasant way out like , a cocktail of my favourite red , morphine and honey....after a sizeable fish supper fae the Dolphin.

[Bluto10]

I'm all for it , I'll hud on for as long as I could because I like it here but if one loses to much control over essential bodily functions then death should be assisted.

 

It's only human.

 

I'd like a nice , pleasant way out like , a cocktail of my favourite red , morphine and honey....after a sizeable fish supper fae the Dolphin.

 

i thought you were a conti's man?

[tup]

Damn I thought this was going to be the next glorious step in the Rangers saga in terms of how Scottish society was going to deal with all those 'supporters' who now have no club to follow.

[phoenix]

i thought you were a conti's man?

 

That wis a mistake Bluto , I meant the Bluebird(Urquart Road).

 

Fa's conti , like ?

[Bluto10]

That wis a mistake Bluto , I meant the Bluebird(Urquart Road).

 

Fa's conti , like ?

 

nae sure, never met him. but he had a chipper named after him in ellon

 

[phoenix]

Damn I thought this was going to be the next glorious step in the Rangers saga in terms of how Scottish society was going to deal with all those 'supporters' who now have no club to follow.

 

According to Alex Thomson, there are some decent supporters of TCFKAR that believe Div 3 is the only way forward for their club.

 

Hooray!

[StandFree1982]

According to Alex Thomson, there are some decent supporters of TCFKAR that believe Div 3 is the only way forward for their club.

 

Hooray!

The Cunts Formerly Known As Rangers?

The Cheats Formerly Known As Rangers

[phoenix]

nae sure, never met him. but he had a chipper named after him in ellon

 

 

 

That'll have been the chipper simply known as 'the Chipper', back in the '60s I wid say.

 

Spent too much time in there playing the pinball machine. You needed a poochfae o' these tho'.

 

 

[Bluto10]

That'll have been the chipper simply known as 'the Chipper', back in the '60s I wid say.

 

Spent too much time in there playing the pinball machine. You needed a poochfae o' these tho'.

 

 

in my day it was an arcade game called pang.

[tommo1903]

That wis a mistake Bluto , I meant the Bluebird(Urquart Road).

 

Fa's conti , like ?

 

The fish in there is shite.

[phoenix]

The fish in there is shite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well there's nae acoontin' fir taste.

 

 

 

 

 

I reckon it's the best in the toon.

 

 

[boboisared]

 

 

 

 

Well there's nae acoontin' fir taste.

 

 

 

 

 

I reckon it's the best in the toon.

I can vouch for it.

[tommo1903]

 

 

 

 

Well there's nae acoontin' fir taste.

 

 

 

 

 

I reckon it's the best in the toon.

 

The bird used to stay on Urquart Road.

 

Had a fine sausage supper their one night.

 

EDIT - I expect Boofon to be along in 5,4,3...

[Big Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya_uJHdOtdc

[dervish]

This.

 

I've watched loved ones riddled with cancer,the fear at first, then then the agony.The agony in their eyes,the agony in your heart as you watch them turn into husks of their former selves.Then the drugs kill their agony while your's goes on until they're gone,but your haunted by the thought of maybe they would rather had not gone through it all.

All I know it would be a brave person to ask for Euthanasia to be administered,and an equally brave person to carry it out.

 

Exactly, the way I see it we'll do the it the pussy long winded painful way by removing care but not in an active fashion to remove pain and sustain dignity. Yes it needs controls but yes we should be able to.

[Dandyesque]

Yes.

 

The checks and balances need to be right, but once someone is in that sort of condition, it should be their choice.

 

As someone pointed out above, you'd spare your dog the misery - why not your grandad?

[360]

Yes.

 

The checks and balances need to be right, but once someone is in that sort of condition, it should be their choice.

 

As someone pointed out above, you'd spare your dog the misery - why not your grandad?

 

Agreed.

 

If someone has a terminal condition that causes them a lot of pain, euthanasia will lead to the same result, but in much less suffering and pain.

[chaos_defrost]

Just on the news that he's lost his case so his suffering will go on. A real shame.

[diamondsr4ever]

Yes.

 

The checks and balances need to be right, but once someone is in that sort of condition, it should be their choice.

 

As someone pointed out above, you'd spare your dog the misery - why not your grandad?

 

im delighted that this thread results in the family pet being used in the same breathe as yer grandad....

[tup]

The bird used to stay on Urquart Road.

 

So did I, right next door to the Bluebird.

 

And Smart's corner shoppie.

[Bluto10]

tup, can i volunteeer you for euthanasia ?

[tommo1903]

So did I, right next door to the Bluebird.

 

And Smart's corner shoppie.

 

Smarts was full of dickhead staff.

 

Used to be bad for selling booze to underagers apparently.

[Pudgie]

im delighted that this thread results in the family pet being used in the same breathe as yer grandad....

Surely this is

 

If you can't understand the comparison between loved, living beings then - and I don't mean to be harsh - you're being a bit thick.