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

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.

I agree that we do hear of violent cases in the news all the time and I also think that there will, as you say, be people who try to get some kind of gain if the law was put through. But I don't think there are that many people who would be that callous. I can see what you mean but purely practically, even if a number of people die unlawfully due to this law, it can potentially help millions more. Surely that's worth it?

I agree that we do hear of violent cases in the news all the time and I also think that there will, as you say, be people who try to get some kind of gain if the law was put through. But I don't think there are that many people who would be that callous. I can see what you mean but purely practically, even if a number of people die unlawfully due to this law, it can potentially help millions more. Surely that's worth it?

I'm a little upset that you feel that even just a small number of people dying against their will is acceptable. What if that was one of your relatives?

And this is precisely the nub of the argument. There are probably more people out there like this than you realise. ( I know in my family there are two people waiting for another two to die just so they can get inheritance - they are that callous) But the law is there to protect these vulnerable cases which is why the law won't be changed. I don't agree with it but I understand why it is there.

I don't deny it. I do think there will be people who will die unnecessarily, cruelly and unlawfully, were this legislation to be put through. But in purely numerical terms, I believe more people would benefit.

Out of curiosity (please do not feel the need to answer if you don't wish), are the people who are expected to die of sound mind/body?

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 )

I don't deny it. I do think there will be people who will die unnecessarily, cruelly and unlawfully, were this legislation to be put through. But in purely numerical terms, I believe more people would benefit.

Out of curiosity (please do not feel the need to answer if you don't wish), are the people who are expected to die of sound mind/body?

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.

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.

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.

Can you give an example of how a greedy relative could do this? The law just needs to cover people who have an objective low quality of life, bringing in relatives who aren't nice to them is subjective so would either be excluded or decided case by case. You'd have to get the state to provide care for the people being abused by their relatives, but arguably that should be in place anyway.

The same happened in my family. A specific person started doing a lot more for an elderly person when it came about the she was ill (not terminally). Eventually it got to the stage that she was so ill that she couldn't get out of bed and was incapable of communicating. However, whenever she saw her grandchildren she smiled. It would have been easy to convince someone that she had zero quality of life. Personally I'm sure she held on for those moments of seeing her children and grandchildren, but the truth is that I had no better idea than anyone else, and it shouldn't be possible for people to decide for her.

I think that considreing people in numerical terms is pretty cold to be honest. If you had to choose between one person dying possibly against their will, and one person living against their will (which is vaguely what this could become, should anyone take advantage of this) would you really feel that death against will is more acceptable than life against will?

Phew - when you put it like that - numerical terms you lose the argument. Our democracy protects the minority against the majority. I agree with you in this case it is not right.

As to my family. One son and his wife are waiting for his mother to die - she is of sound mind - they are skint. It is too awful to think about how they have treated her. The same two are also waiting for an aunt to die. She however has Alzheimers ( they have already tried to extract money from her)

In the latter case - the rest of the family has been in discussion about how we deal with her. Is it dignified for her to loose her marbles and be treated as a baby - when the rest of her body is as strong as an ox. Obviously it is not the same as the case we have been discussing, but it is an issue that will become increasingly common over the next few years.

I agree with thelast part you posted. It is just far too difficult to draw the line. A load of greedy relatives could easily argue that someone has low/ zero quality of life if they have little means of communication.

On the whole, I wish that everyone who IS suffering zero quality of life COULD make their own decision. I just don't feel that it would be anywhere near possible to draw a line between themselves choosing, and someone choosing for them. Chances are, if your quality of life is that low, it is difficult for you to communicate anyway.

I'm amazed at the stupidity of the people who seem to think this is a law that will allow people to 'put down' their sick relatives. The sooner these morons do their research and shut up the sooner we will have a law which guarantees autonomy over your own body.

Phew - when you put it like that - numerical terms you lose the argument. Our democracy protects the minority against the majority. I agree with you in this case it is not right.

As to my family. One son and his wife are waiting for his mother to die - she is of sound mind - they are skint. It is too awful to think about how they have treated her. The same two are also waiting for an aunt to die. She however has Alzheimers ( they have already tried to extract money from her)

In the latter case - the rest of the family has been in discussion about how we deal with her. Is it dignified for her to loose her marbles and be treated as a baby - when the rest of her body is as strong as an ox. Obviously it is not the same as the case we have been discussing, but it is an issue that will become increasingly common over the next few years.

I think the fact that suicide and assisted suicide is illegal is so dumb, I know what your thinking - how can someone who commits suicide be arrested ... they're dead. But in some countries like India they will literally send you to PRISON for attempting and failing to commit suicide a lot of the time people fail to commit suicide.

I know the case you linked is more complex but it comes down to this: nobody asks to be born ever. You get born without asking. In my opinion there are few things as immoral as not letting someone die who wants to simply because they never asked to be born in the first place.

I think if new born babies were completely intelligent and self aware when they were born and after they were born they went into a room where they watched a 5 hour long presentation on the earth, about the lives they might live, the things that go on, the inevitability of death and the insignificance of the earth and themselves in the universe. After watching this I think around 0.1% would chose not to bother with life they would just say 'thanks but this is not for me'. And that's fine.

Having said this I do not recommend suicide for anyone especially young people I'm sure that for the majority who considers it their life gets better. But if someone if absolutely sure they do not want to live you can not refuse them the right the death because they never asked to be born.

I'm amazed at the stupidity of the people who seem to think this is a law that will allow people to 'put down' their sick relatives. The sooner these morons do their research and shut up the sooner we will have a law which guarantees autonomy over your own body.