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

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

Thoughts and views?

Can't we create a situation where he will be taking his own life? For example, he could tell a robot to kill him. That way, no one commits murder.

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.

It may not affect your ability to calculate but potentially deteriorates your standard of living to such a degree that there would be not point in performing the function in the initial instance. I would imagine creating a robot with the intent to kill would be tantamount to aiding and abetting at the very least or, otherwise, the robot would be designated a weapon (and not granted sapience, as you are doing), thus any kind of automated form of suicide would immediately put blame on the creator.

It may create some kind of schism or provoke thought if Mr. Nicklinson did find a way to take his own life however.

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

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

Entirely false. As somebody beginning their medical degree in September, I have a keen interest in medical ethics and law. An important pillar of modern medicine is patient autonomy - "Voluntas aegroti suprema lex". I find it interesting that technically, a patient is allowed to refuse a treatment that may save their life and as such ensure their own death but directly choosing death is prohibited. Were I in the same room as this man - Tony Nicklinson - and there were means available to kill him humanely and painlessly and he so wished, I would have no moral qualms doing so.

It frustrates me intensely that decisions relating to medical philosophy are being made by blethering politicians that have more concern for their public image than for this poor man, whom they are condemning to a life he does not want.

They talk about opening the floodgates for people to kill off elderly relatives if euthanasia is legalised. This is wrong. The state of Oregon in the US has legalised euthanasia for over 10 years, in which time 400 people have made the decision to end their own lives. None have been mentally frail or at risk of coercion by relatives that stand to gain from their premature death. There are innumerable precautions taken to make sure that nothing shady is going on, and that the patient is of a fit mental state to make such a decision. Foul play is nigh impossible.

I hope this reply satisfies you. For future reference, lose the smug attitude. It will not serve you well in life.

There now, isn't that better than: 'This doesn't even merit a discussion. Anybody opposing this man's sovereignty over his own body is a moron.'?

No, because I know what I think and on this issue particularly I am rather fatigued. I have made this argument numerous times and it has begun to bore me.

P.S: I enjoy having debates with people,

but once there is even a hint of personal animosity involved I am immediately disinterested. This is one of those cases.

Oh, you poor dear. I can see where you're coming from though, we have of course all read your previous work on the subject.

But that quite obviously isn't true as your first post indicates and I can quite see why a debate might be a problem for you.

It appears that you like to make little pronouncements but can't quite handle being challenged, especially when you are demonstrably wrong. It's not animosity that you retreat from, it's anyone who has the temerity to question your position. You come across like one of the tone deaf little darlings on X Factor, mummy has spent years telling you how wonderful you are and you have come to believe it. When you are confronted by the real world it's a bit of a wake up call. I guess that your 'lose the smugness' didn't really hint of animosity then.

You're going to find at uni that 'I already know the answer but I'm fatigued with the question so I'm not going to tell you' wont pass many exams.

I have no idea what your personal vendetta against me is, but it isn't making you look very good. I really don't know what I've done to upset you as much as I seem to have. I've said my piece and argued my corner on this topic, and I'm tired of entertaining your personal slander. I genuinely wish you well and good luck in whatever you do!

I have a better idea: invent a robot that he can control with his mind. He can use it to feed his real body etc. and won't feel helpless anymore.

My goodness, you're back.
No personal vendetta, it's not all about you, another real world lesson for you. All I have done is responded to your posts. The 'upset' tack is pretty poor, well worn and failry pointless.

You posted an arrogant and 'fatigued' comment to which I responded. You then came back with a couple of points which you somehow imagined settled the whole discussion. You obviously didn't like it when it was pointed out that a. there were holes in your argument and, b. you had repeated some comments that I had made earlier.

I'm sure you're a bright person but you need to a. be aware that your word is not the final word and, b. grow a skin, not everyone will bother to stroke your ego*.

*a big ego is one thing, self belief etc very useful in someone who might be called on to make life or death decisions, but an inflated ego is just a small ego blown up like a balloon and just as easily popped.

Luck in Sept.