[shorty.loves.angels]

(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?

[Redolent]

(Original post by Keckers)
Not allowing assisted suicide to a human being who wants to die is in my opinion tantamount to torture.

Exactly. It's so wrong that somebody should be able to make his decisions for him when he knows his circumstances better than anyone.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by silverbolt)
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.

My bad. In which case, the law is just inconsistent. Mr. Nicklinson perhaps put it best when stating that an able bodied person is permitted to commit suicide whereas those of sound mind but not of body are strictly prohibited.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by squeakysquirrel)
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.

For your first point, being depressed should not necessarily mean one is not of sound mind. You can be depressed and at the same time rational and cognisant of the gravity of your decision.

On your second point, it will have crossed their mind. A carer may subtly, even unintentionally, encourage it, but as long as it's not coercive, it will still be the decision of the patient.

There's no perfect solution to this, like almost everything else, it's a trade-off.

[GuitarWorm]

I feel so sorry for him. If he wants to die then I think it should be allowed. He just looks so miserable.

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by shorty.loves.angels)
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 don't know how often the case may come up in reference to your first point. Why would somebody commit suicide or allow euthanasia out of convenience? Not to mention, those perpetrating the notion would have to be pretty cold hearted and callous. I have enough faith in humans to believe that we wouldn't be facing a horde of greedy children and grandchildren just waiting for grandma or grandpa to give up the ghost.

I don't see why we should have to implement who is of sound mind or not. We don't screen people who commit suicide before permitting them to go ahead. If the person is unable to commit to any kind of thought process, then this of course is a different matter and you would probably have to consult the next of kin but in most cases, I believe the person who is living should decide when to die.

EDIT: To your edited point: the patient decides. I can only imagine the next of kin would decide in an extreme or exceptional case where the patient shows no further signs of improvement.

[Redolent]

(Original post by shorty.loves.angels)
Even if we were to decide to take each case individually, imagine how much work would have to go into it.

I don't think that's a very good reason to prohibit it. Lots of things seem to take a lot more effort than we would like but we still push through due to principle. I think the principle that we should be able to help a suffering person escape their pain the only way they can is a very strong one.

[Redolent]

Also, I understand that there's a huge swamp of practical difficulties a pro-euthanasia state would have to work through such as "where do we draw the line between sound mind and irrationality" and "how do we know this person has not been convinced by a third party with bad intentions", but if these do anything they only encourage the state to be very strict about when to allow euthanasia, banning it altogether is a different matter entirely. In extreme cases such as this one there isn't really a grey area as might be argued with most other cases - he thinks rationally, he is suffering and he has no future escape. They should let him die.

[mrt23498]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I don't know how often the case may come up in reference to your first point. Why would somebody commit suicide or allow euthanasia out of convenience? Not to mention, those perpetrating the notion would have to be pretty cold hearted and callous. I have enough faith in humans to believe that we wouldn't be facing a horde of greedy children and grandchildren just waiting for grandma or grandpa to give up the ghost.

I don't have faith in fellow human beings, we are after all horrible people.

Most years, you hear of someone in this country who kills their grandma or something for the inheritance and in general there are many people who have no problem with murdering their relatives, hence there are sometimes when the child or the spouse or the parent may not have their parent, their spouse, their child in the best interests (respectively)

[ANARCHY__]

(Original post by mrt23498)
I don't have faith in fellow human beings, we are after all horrible people.

Most years, you hear of someone in this country who kills their grandma or something for the inheritance and in general there are many people who have no problem with murdering their relatives, hence there are sometimes when the child or the spouse or the parent may not have their parent, their spouse, their child in the best interests (respectively)

I'm not saying I don't expect the law to not be abused. In some cases, it will. However, the overriding number of cases - I believe - will end people's suffering and pain.

I don't understand where you came to the conclusion that humanity is 'horrible' however.

[Keckers]

(Original post by mrt23498)
I don't have faith in fellow human beings, we are after all horrible people.

I completely disagree, we are a noble and proud species who are capable of despicable acts. To deny a human being control over their own existence is to make them subservient to their condition. Nothing is more despicable than forcing an individual to suffer great pains just because another may abuse the law.

[The Dufmeister]

(Original post by silverbolt)
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)

If he has the right to die, you are giving the state the right to kill.

One must be very careful with this, hence the legal wrangling.

[Tortious]

(Original post by silverbolt)
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.

You're right. Article 2 of the European Convention guarantees right to life - Diane Pretty tried to argue that it also covered right to die, but that was rejected.

She died less than a fortnight after her final appeal was refused.

[Mm_Minty]

Everyone is so focused on "right to life" that they forget about our right to body autonomy.

[Kamaljot]

This is kind off topic but how does some one know an animal which is suffering 'wants' to die. It may want to live..

[ArcadiaHouse]

But the Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would authorise murder

Murdered people have their lives ended against their will.

[shorty.loves.angels]

(Original post by ANARCHY__)
I don't know how often the case may come up in reference to your first point. Why would somebody commit suicide or allow euthanasia out of convenience? Not to mention, those perpetrating the notion would have to be pretty cold hearted and callous. I have enough faith in humans to believe that we wouldn't be facing a horde of greedy children and grandchildren just waiting for grandma or grandpa to give up the ghost.

I don't see why we should have to implement who is of sound mind or not. We don't screen people who commit suicide before permitting them to go ahead. If the person is unable to commit to any kind of thought process, then this of course is a different matter and you would probably have to consult the next of kin but in most cases, I believe the person who is living should decide when to die.

EDIT: To your edited point: the patient decides. I can only imagine the next of kin would decide in an extreme or exceptional case where the patient shows no further signs of improvement.

Sorry for the late edit. My wording didn't seem 'of sound mind'

But honestly I disagree I think there will be far too many. We hear selfish acts of violence/ brutality in the news all the time. I think that allowing someone to die would just encourage people to do this knowing that they would technically not be breaking the law. I too have faith in humanity, in most cases, but there WILL be attempts to get some people legally killed off for convenience (of some kind) and I think we should avoid this at all costs. I realise that this means that many people with zero/ low quality of life will not be allowed to choose to die, but I think I'd rather that opening the floodgates to perpetrators getting with murder.

[CintiaMarina]

No one but that man can understand the daily struggles he goes through, and although the law says "to save life and preserve it" etc. - That man has no quality of life whatsoever, and if it is his decision, to end his life, then let him do so!

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my ST18i

[madders94]

They should amend the definition of murder so that it is being killed against your will, that way by allowing this man to die, no-one is comitting murder.

[shorty.loves.angels]

(Original post by Keckers)
Nothing is more despicable than forcing an individual to suffer great pains just because another may abuse the law.

Really?

You'd rather a law be passed so that people can legally put to death, than prevent the greed and injustice of people with a sick relative (or whatever - to the point of low/ zero quality of life) who could convince the state that they would want to die?

I just don't think we're able to put enough in pace to prevent against the latter in favour of the former.

(Sorry for late edits, keep missing words out )