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

Scroll to see replies

Surely that is included in the second part, establishing appropriate safeguards.

The argument at this stage is not remotely about which particular issues are considered good cases for euthenasia, that is a practical detail for consideration when it has been agreed that the idea is sound in principle. Wandering off into defining each and every possible condition that may or may not be eligible is not relevent at this stage.

Fine, but since the argument up to now was simply - should he be allowed to die, I'm just answering the question.

Reply 101

That Bearded Man

Original post by ANARCHY__

This is flawed logic and I do not understand why this reason is put forth so often. People who commit suicide are not usually in a state of elation and, more often than not, are considered clinically depressed. Depression is a genuine feeling.

Well there is a difference between being suicidal constantly and only feeling suicidal BECAUSE you're depressed. If you remove the depression you may be hopeful of recovery

Reply 102

scotttb

WTF. Just let the man die.

Reply 103

GStevens

Original post by squeakysquirrel

You seem very sure of yourself - this is the second time in this thread that you have said this.

Said what? You reposted my whole post so I am unsure which particular statement you are referring to.

I would like to think you are right.... but I think in reality you are wrong. I cannot see the law changing. There isn't the political will to change and the government is too busy pandering to the liberals to try anything new.

The law has changed in several countries across the world, I see no reason why it wont change here. The law in this country is undergoing it's fastest rate of change for years, the Human Rights Act has stirred up enormous change, the usual lethargy and inertia has been challenged.

I don't know you - I suspect you are a law student, not a health worker and you see things in black and white.

Wrong on all counts. Law student in Sept, have been involved in health issues, mental and physical, and social work. I absolutely don't have a binary view and can't see where I have demonstrated that.

I am not saying that is wrong - it is healthy to remove emotion.

Not wanting to discuss a subject this important emotively is not the same as being emotionless. When people become emotive on this subject they usually get lost in sympathy for the person and unable to address the issues. We start to see emotive language like 'putting down a human like a dog' and unhelpful rubbish like that. It reduces a discussion to the level of a tabloid newspaper. GOVERNMENT PASS LAW TO ALLOW MASS KILLING OF DISABLED!! Any element would be true, the law is passed, it does allow 'killing', it will be multiple people, some will be 'disabled'. But the overall meaning is distorted and doesn't represent the real situation.

That is why I prefer to keep the mawkish emotion out.

But you are right - it is a growing problem - not least the amount of people with alzheimers - whom we are keeping alive. I hope to God though that you are not the one pushing the button.

I really don't understand that. I really hope I'm not ever in that position either but I suspect you were implying something regarding my 'lack of emotion'. You couldn't be more wrong.

And it is unlikely that Alzheimers sufferers would be included in this law anyway. In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, less than 400 people have been helped to die in ten years. Of those none were patients with dementia.

There is no reason to suppose that we would see vastly different data here.

If you read this in time there is a relevent program on BBC2 about Great Ormond Street, discussing such issues as turning off life support. The conferences give an indication of the types of safeguards that would be in place if this law came in.

Reply 104

ANARCHY__

Original post by That Bearded Man

Well there is a difference between being suicidal constantly and only feeling suicidal BECAUSE you're depressed. If you remove the depression you may be hopeful of recovery

Sure but in both instances you're going to feel some form of depression. It's not something you can simply remove; it may be intrinsic because of the seemingly perpetual standard of living you face (i.e. terminal/debilitating illness).

Reply 105

GStevens

Original post by squeakysquirrel

I have worked in the caring professions for many years and have seen lots of people in the same position. It is a hard one to call - our moral duty is to maintain life.

There is not a moral duty to maintain life. It is not that black and white.
There is certainly not an imperative to save life at all costs, not even in the original Hippocratic Oath and certainly not in the modern oaths which most doctors take.

In reality we cannot effectively kill people because it goes against our code of conduct. In reality we can speed up the death of people if they have underlying diseases. In this case Tony does not have underlying diseases apart from having no speech or movement. It is a very distasteful scenario because we could all find ourselves in the same situation

It is fairly well known that the medical profession will use verious methods to alleviate suffering that will be detrimental to longevity. To do this in the full knowledge that they are aiding the death of their patient requires that they have developed a more sophisticated morality than 'life at all costs'. They understand that the law does not support what they do but that the imperative to do the best for their patient will often require it.

Unfortunately this activity would not be covered by any law about assisted suicide but it shows that a section of society that we consider generally moral has already accepted that the death of a patient is often in the best interests of the patient.

Now we just need the rest of society and the Government to catch up.

Reply 106

DaveSmith99

I don't see one single good reason to not allow this man the right to die.

Reply 107

Sheep

so much liberalism, they don't even understand how they're contradicting themselves with this infringement of freedom, anyone should be allowed to kill themself in any situation, that is my opinion

it's much worse in this case though

because if anyone wanted to kill themself they could just go ahead and do it, this man is paralyzed so he's not even able

Reply 108

cl_steele

Original post by Sheep

not entirely true, he said in the documentary there were two options; 1 being the courts giving him his right to a quick death but the second was starvation, not a very good set of choices:/

Reply 109

Logi

Original post by Sheep

How have you managed to convince yourself this is anything to do with liberalism? Liberals are more likely to be proponents of euthanasia... :confused:

Reply 110

Happydude

Original post by GStevens

Then you don't understand the issues.

What? And who are you to tell me what I do and do not understand?

Yet again, this is a simple enough issue complicated by idiots. I can't muster the strength of will to write a well-articulated paragraph given how utterly dumb it is to even consider this man's wish to die an "issue".

Reply 111

geetar

The man should be allowed to die, the law is condemning him to constant phsyical pain, indignity, and a terrible death for no valid reason. The law needs to change.

People who say otherwise are, to be honest, effectively torturing the man - and others like him - through their own ignorance, outdated religious morality about the 'sanctity of life', fear of their own mortality, or all three. I've just followed him and his daughter on twitter, and some of the messages there are ridiculous, such as one guy telling Tony to stay alive, because "everything happens for a reason". What a ****ing moron. I don't get angry about many things, and most of my posts on this website are fairly tongue-in-cheek, but I can't not get angry at the attitude of people like that poster.

I don't know if someone has posted this previously, but this is Tony Nicklinson explaining his case in his own words, incredibly eloquently.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 112

ANARCHY__

Thus far, all arguments against assisted suicide have been abandoned or emotionally charged within this thread and, I presume, across the wider social sphere of society. The above article explains lucidly a myriad of reasons for assisted suicide becoming legalised and whilst this is a matter that should be entered delicately, it should be considered that opponents (as far as I am aware) have offered no form of plausible or adequate response.

Reply 113

GStevens

Original post by Happydude

What? And who are you to tell me what I do and do not understand?

Yet again, this is a simple enough issue complicated by idiots.

You just provide more evidence that you don't understand the issues each time you post.

I can't muster the strength of will to write a well-articulated paragraph given how utterly dumb it is to even consider this man's wish to die an "issue".

It's quite obviously less the will than the ability, but thank you for your contribution.

Reply 114

GoodbyeTSR

Original post by cl_steele

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

Thoughts and views?

Why can't he continue living, like Stephen Hawking?

Reply 115

Shafski

Does anyone know exactly how that computer hes talking from in the video on the link works? Thats really interesting.

Anyway, he should be allowed. Its his decision and it does say he has a full functioning mind. The thing about "opens the floodgates to murder" is the biggest load of *******s.

Reply 116

cl_steele

Original post by thomaskurian89

Why can't he continue living, like Stephen Hawking?

Because stephen Hawking wants to live, this man doesnt. You can put it down to whatever you like maybe Hawking is a stronger person or maybe he is weaker depending how you wish to look at it but as countless people on the thread have said the one thing a person should have total sovriegnty over is their body and if he wishes to die a dignified death as apposed to this living hell he's currently in who is anyone else to say no? Its all personal choice to be honest.

Reply 117

cl_steele

Original post by Shafski

Does anyone know exactly how that computer hes talking from in the video on the link works? Thats really interesting.

Anyway, he should be allowed. Its his decision and it does say he has a full functioning mind. The thing about "opens the floodgates to murder" is the biggest load of *******s.

It tracks his eye movements with a load of cameras and when he wants to select a letter/word/number etc. he blinks and that functions as the mouse click, must be an aweful lot of effort to use but a truly ingenious piece of tech none the less!

Reply 118

Taimmi

If I was in that position I would probably also want to die, to be honest. However, the practicalities of overturning a law like that are incredibly difficult to determine. What makes his case so difficult is that he would be able to end his own life if he had any other condition, but because the results of his stroke left him unable to do so, it means that anyone who helps him would be able to be charged for murder. Therefore if the law was changed it would be difficult to assess what could be murder and what could be assisted suicide.

Reply 119

GoodbyeTSR

If I was in his position, I probably wouldn't want to die. That's because I'm a mathematician, and I don't think his condition would severely impair my ability to do maths. That said, I would want to have the right to die.