The Student Room Group

'Locked-in syndrome' man's right-to-die case starts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18495973

Thoughts and views?

Scroll to see replies

The law will not be changed, because it would open the floodgates for people wanting to kill off their disabled relatives. I do support him and I cannot imagine how awful his life must be. We would not allow an animal to exist like this, yet to "put down" a human goes against all that our moral codes dictate. I read an article about him several months ago where he stated that apart from his locked in syndrome he was sickeningly healthy. He takes virtually no drugs yet all his body systems function well - he cannot die of some other disease like a heart attack etc. The best outcome for him would be to request that no post mortem be done and then he could be injected with an overdose of insulin or something similar.
Reply 2
Avatar for Redolent
Redolent
10
You shouldn't let a man who wants to die be killed if he is unable to make a rational decision. This isn't one of those men - it even says he has a fully functioning mind.

"But the Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would authorise murder and change the law governing it."
Load of nonsense. There's no murder in this and that's plain for all to see.
I wish him all the best of luck. His life, his body, his choice.
Reply 4
Avatar for cl_steele
cl_steele
OP
2
Original post by squeakysquirrel
The law will not be changed, because it would open the floodgates for people wanting to kill off their disabled relatives. I do support him and I cannot imagine how awful his life must be. We would not allow an animal to exist like this, yet to "put down" a human goes against all that our moral codes dictate. I read an article about him several months ago where he stated that apart from his locked in syndrome he was sickeningly healthy. He takes virtually no drugs yet all his body systems function well - he cannot die of some other disease like a heart attack etc. The best outcome for him would be to request that no post mortem be done and then he could be injected with an overdose of insulin or something similar.


How would it though? this is an exceptional case and would only set a precident among cases of similar calibre, as you said the law probably wont be changed but if it is itll be changed so that only people whose conditions merit it are allowed to have someone kill them and lets be honest whilst he is 'healthy' i wouldnt wish that condition on my worst enemy it is horrificly dehumanising, there was a show on him last night, he cant even swallow his food....
I hope he gets what he wants.

The law needs to change.
Original post by Redolent
You shouldn't let a man who wants to die be killed if he is unable to make a rational decision. This isn't one of those men - it even says he has a fully functioning mind.

"But the Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would authorise murder and change the law governing it."
Load of nonsense. There's no murder in this and that's plain for all to see.


I am playing devils advocate here, but if I gave you an overdose of morphine deliberately and you died that would be murder - plain and simple. How is it different if I gave Tony the same injection?

As I said earlier, I am fully supportive of him and would give him an overdose myself if I could be assured of no murder charge. I work in the healthcare profession and have seen numerous cases over the years where the quality of life is zero.
Reply 7
Avatar for ANARCHY__
ANARCHY__
13
It seems like the Ministry of Justice can't understand their own judicial framework.

Definition
mur·der
noun /ˈmərdər/ 
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another


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
Reply 8
Avatar for Tortious
Tortious
16
Original post by ANARCHY__
It seems like the Ministry of Justice can't understand their own judicial framework.


I'm not sure I understand your point. Mr Nicklinson is saying that he can't physically commit suicide, but the current law means that anyone else who ends his life (whatever you want to call that process) commits murder - the "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". Creating an "assisted dying exception" would alter the law on murder. Where's the inconsistency? :erm:
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 9
Avatar for ANARCHY__
ANARCHY__
13
Original post by squeakysquirrel
I am playing devils advocate here, but if I gave you an overdose of morphine deliberately and you died that would be murder - plain and simple. How is it different if I gave Tony the same injection?

As I said earlier, I am fully supportive of him and would give him an overdose myself if I could be assured of no murder charge. I work in the healthcare profession and have seen numerous cases over the years where the quality of life is zero.


You're taking a strange position. How can you on the one hand support euthanasia for the patient in question and on the other state that you would treat his death and deliberate medical malpractice in the same way?
Original post by cl_steele
How would it though? this is an exceptional case and would only set a precident among cases of similar calibre, as you said the law probably wont be changed but if it is itll be changed so that only people whose conditions merit it are allowed to have someone kill them and lets be honest whilst he is 'healthy' i wouldnt wish that condition on my worst enemy it is horrificly dehumanising, there was a show on him last night, he cant even swallow his food....


Look, I fully support him - if it was me I would want to die. It is the most undignified thing ever.

The trouble is with these cases is that you have to be of "sound mind" One simple assessment by an psychiatrist will tell you that he will be depressed and therefore not of sound mind. The you have the likes of "Life" and "Notdeadyet" (I think they were called) poking their oars in.

I would say that virtually all profoundly disabled people are a little bit depressed. To be a carer for them is a thankless task - I have some inkling of what it can be like because I work in a hospital. All it takes is a carer to plant the seeds in their minds et voila you have a patient wanting to die.
Original post by Tortious
I'm not sure I understand your point. Mr Nicklinson is saying that he can't physically commit suicide, but the current law means that anyone else who ends his life (whatever you want to call that process) commits murder - the "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". Creating an "assisted dying exception" would alter the law on murder. Where's the inconsistency? :erm:


Presumably it cannot be unlawful if the person in question permits the killing in the first place? I find the concept of an 'unlawful killing' a little bit of a paradox (I cannot think of any lawful instances of murder for example) but euthanasia surely cannot classified as murder because it defies many core aspects of the crime itself.
Have some frigging mercy you bunch of up your ass ****ers and let the guy die.

If a dog was in this position - youd put it down as its kinder, this is barbaric and cruel. he wants to die. He should have the right to end his life (with help if needed)
Original post by ANARCHY__
Presumably it cannot be unlawful if the person in question permits the killing in the first place? I find the concept of an 'unlawful killing' a little bit of a paradox (I cannot think of any lawful instances of murder for example) but euthanasia surely cannot classified as murder because it defies many core aspects of the crime itself.


If i recall correctly (and it may have been changed since) in the eyes of the law a person can not give consent to be put to death.
Individual cases require different circumstances, the law should be based on individual cases, you can't generalise everyone under one roof. Especially in heart breaking circumstances like these.
I can't imagine anything worse than living in that situation :frown:
Reply 16
Avatar for Redolent
Redolent
10
Original post by squeakysquirrel

If I gave you an overdose of morphine deliberately and you died that would be murder - plain and simple. How is it different if I gave Tony the same injection?
I think a key part of murder's definition should be that the person doesn't want to die. If that isn't already the case then as far as I'm concerned there's a flaw the legal definition of murder and this provides a good opportunity for that to be corrected. Killing a man who wants to die (and can decide that rationally) becomes labelled purely as legal euthanasia, and you giving me an overdose or morphine would quite rightly be murder because I have no desire to die.

As I said earlier, I am fully supportive of him and would give him an overdose myself if I could be assured of no murder charge. I work in the healthcare profession and have seen numerous cases over the years where the quality of life is zero.
I completely agree with that. I think for all the people out there who are rational and want to die because they have no quality of life and no real potential for quality of life, there are doctors out there willing to help them die with dignity. I get how the idea of legally killing someone can seem a bit distasteful, but on balance I think trapping a suffering man in his body when all he desires is escape is a far less humane decision. Obviously there would have to be a rigorous psychological assessment performed first.
Reply 17
Avatar for Keckers
Keckers
15
Not allowing assisted suicide to a human being who wants to die is in my opinion tantamount to torture.
What sort of quality of life has he got right now? If I were in that situation, I think I'd want to die too. And I think it's disgusting that in a 'liberal' society we are denying someone the opportunity to make that decision for himself. He's rational and sane, therefore it is his choice, not down to some one-size-fits-all, follow-the-law-to-the-letter legal ruling.
Original post by ANARCHY__
Presumably it cannot be unlawful if the person in question permits the killing in the first place? I find the concept of an 'unlawful killing' a little bit of a paradox (I cannot think of any lawful instances of murder for example) but euthanasia surely cannot classified as murder because it defies many core aspects of the crime itself.


I completely sit on the fence here. I understand that zero quality of life is not preferable to dying in some cases, but can you imagine how many wealthy elderly relatives with low quality of life might be forced/ convinced to sign their life away? They might be perfectly happy watching their family grow, despite not having much quality of life themselves, but a greedy relative could probably find a good way of getting rid of them without it being against the law. And somebody would have to decide who is of sound mind and who isn't. I just don't think we can implement a system where it would be so difficult to judge the situation. Even if we were to decide to take each case individually, imagine how much work would have to go into it.

I think what I'm trying to say is, who decides whether the patient has given permission, or whether they have been convinced/ forced into it?
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you