Tony Nicklinson loses euthanasia case
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MattKneale
I know, poor guy. If I was his family, though, I'd probably just push the law and do it anyway. The hardest thing is finding a nice way to do it without causing pain.
I know, poor guy. If I was his family, though, I'd probably just push the law and do it anyway. The hardest thing is finding a nice way to do it without causing pain.Morphine?
Original post by The Patriot
Yet again, the unelected judges ignore the public opinion, upholding draconian views on society.
If a fully healthy man wanted to kill himself, he could jump off a bridge or something. With disabled people though, their disability gets used against them, preventing them from having control over their life.
Eventually, people will see sense. This can be legislated around - judges are just avoiding it due to their own prejudices.
If a fully healthy man wanted to kill himself, he could jump off a bridge or something. With disabled people though, their disability gets used against them, preventing them from having control over their life.
Eventually, people will see sense. This can be legislated around - judges are just avoiding it due to their own prejudices.
Judges uphold and interpret laws. They do not have the power to create their own ones. That is the job of parliment.
Original post by thomaskurian89
On the bright side, Tony Nicklinson's case may be the catalyst for changing the law. His fight won't be in vain.
Good point, hadnt considered that.
The problem, as I see it, is that Mr. Nicklinson ,or anybody in his position, is not capable of killing themselves and thus requires someone else to fulfill the 'act', unlike other cases where the subject would just ingest a cocktail of poisons prepared for them. Except for self defense, killing anybody under any circumstances is murder. What the judges in this case are getting at is that there does not exist a legal mechanism by which a person reliving Mr. Nicklinson from his pain would not be judged a murderer.
While I fully support Mr. Nicklinson's case (the only person with a right to preside over any life is that person him- or herself) I think it is also worth remembering that the courts are only concerned with the application of the law and not the creation nor rewriting thereof. That, is a matter for the legislature i.e. parliament. Unfortunately for the the subject, this judgment makes it look as though this issue will have to fought out in the political arena.
I sincerely hope he finds relief from his suffering.
While I fully support Mr. Nicklinson's case (the only person with a right to preside over any life is that person him- or herself) I think it is also worth remembering that the courts are only concerned with the application of the law and not the creation nor rewriting thereof. That, is a matter for the legislature i.e. parliament. Unfortunately for the the subject, this judgment makes it look as though this issue will have to fought out in the political arena.
I sincerely hope he finds relief from his suffering.
Original post by thomaskurian89
Morphine?
That's only an option if you have access to it, and to be honest it's not a very pleasant way to go even if you give them **** loads. Orally it'd be just be a nightmare so you'd have to give it intravenously and most people don't know how to do that properly.
Could his wife not take him to Dignitas?
I thought someone's parents took them to Dignitas from the UK before, and didn't face prosecution for assisted suicide.
I thought someone's parents took them to Dignitas from the UK before, and didn't face prosecution for assisted suicide.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Could his wife not take him to Dignitas?
I thought someone's parents took them to Dignitas from the UK before, and didn't face prosecution for assisted suicide.
I thought someone's parents took them to Dignitas from the UK before, and didn't face prosecution for assisted suicide.
I was under the impression they now don't allow foreign suicides? I could be wrong.
The decision isn't sickening at all. In any form of civilized government there has to be a separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. If a sovereign Parliament has enacted X, then it would be a massive abuse of their powers for the judges to hold 'not X'. What people in this thread are suggesting is the opposite of democracy. The judges are not elected so their function is to simply uphold what the elected legislature enact.
From the judgments:
Royce J - "Some will say the Judges must step in to change the law. Some may be sorely tempted to do so. But the short answer is that to do so here would be to usurp the function of Parliament in this classically sensitive area. Any change would need the most carefully structured safeguards which only Parliament can deliver."
And Macur J - "The issues raised by Tony and Martin’s case are conspicuously matters which must be adjudicated upon by Parliament and not Judges or the DPP as unelected officers of state."
The only moral cowardice here is that of politicans who are not prepared to risk their political careers sponsoring a change in the law which would be unpopular with a lot of their constituents. It is not morally cowardly for judges to ignore their own individual moral prejudices and apply the law. It is precisely what they are supposed to do, and what is (morally) correct for them to do.
From the judgments:
Royce J - "Some will say the Judges must step in to change the law. Some may be sorely tempted to do so. But the short answer is that to do so here would be to usurp the function of Parliament in this classically sensitive area. Any change would need the most carefully structured safeguards which only Parliament can deliver."
And Macur J - "The issues raised by Tony and Martin’s case are conspicuously matters which must be adjudicated upon by Parliament and not Judges or the DPP as unelected officers of state."
The only moral cowardice here is that of politicans who are not prepared to risk their political careers sponsoring a change in the law which would be unpopular with a lot of their constituents. It is not morally cowardly for judges to ignore their own individual moral prejudices and apply the law. It is precisely what they are supposed to do, and what is (morally) correct for them to do.
(edited 11 years ago)
Everytime I see this poor man on TV I look at my limbs and eyes and mouth and body and am so, so sooooooo grateful. I feel so desperately sad for him
I don't know about you guys but I'm disgusted by this. This man is SUFFERING and he should have the right to die if he feels he needs it. God forbid any of these people who rejected his case get any terminal illnesses!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Could his wife not take him to Dignitas?
I thought someone's parents took them to Dignitas from the UK before, and didn't face prosecution for assisted suicide.
I thought someone's parents took them to Dignitas from the UK before, and didn't face prosecution for assisted suicide.
She could if she wanted to risk being prosecuted, it sucks so badly. It's funny how we afford animals the right to die but not our own kind.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by The Patriot
Yet again, the unelected judges ignore the public opinion, upholding draconian views on society.
If a fully healthy man wanted to kill himself, he could jump off a bridge or something. With disabled people though, their disability gets used against them, preventing them from having control over their life.
Eventually, people will see sense. This can be legislated around - judges are just avoiding it due to their own prejudices.
If a fully healthy man wanted to kill himself, he could jump off a bridge or something. With disabled people though, their disability gets used against them, preventing them from having control over their life.
Eventually, people will see sense. This can be legislated around - judges are just avoiding it due to their own prejudices.
.Original post by The Patriot
Yet again, the unelected judges ignore the public opinion, upholding draconian views on society.
If a fully healthy man wanted to kill himself, he could jump off a bridge or something. With disabled people though, their disability gets used against them, preventing them from having control over their life.
Eventually, people will see sense. This can be legislated around - judges are just avoiding it due to their own prejudices.
If a fully healthy man wanted to kill himself, he could jump off a bridge or something. With disabled people though, their disability gets used against them, preventing them from having control over their life.
Eventually, people will see sense. This can be legislated around - judges are just avoiding it due to their own prejudices.
I agree that his partner should be allowed to help him die. But I also suspect the repeated decisions against assisted suicide are less to do with draconian views, and more for fear of it not being regulated.
If something like this is to be made legal, it really needs to be legislated on in Parliament. There needs to be strict regulation to protect people from murderers seeking to use euthanasia as a pretext for their killing.
To legalise this sort of thing through the common law would be incredibly dangerous.
Edit: reading the Court transcripts may well prove that the decisions were based on archaic values. #cantbeassed
(edited 11 years ago)
It's stupid really, the choice should ultimately come down to him because nobody else knows exactly how it feels to live his life and the suffering he goes through at the hands of his situation.
It's so easy for a judge to simply say no, and then go back to living their own lives where they're able to do things for themselves, hug their loved ones, even talk to people without a person there to translate their blink signals!
It must be absolute agony to sit there day after day, unable to move or talk, especially considering the fact he once could do these things! It's just not something many people would be able to get used to.
It's so easy for a judge to simply say no, and then go back to living their own lives where they're able to do things for themselves, hug their loved ones, even talk to people without a person there to translate their blink signals!
It must be absolute agony to sit there day after day, unable to move or talk, especially considering the fact he once could do these things! It's just not something many people would be able to get used to.
**** the religious "backlash", stop being scared of offending religious people, the more we offend them the better.
Original post by Sean9001
I agree that his partner should be allowed to help him die. But I also suspect the repeated decisions against assisted suicide are less to do with draconian views, and more for fear of it not being regulated.
If something like this is to be made legal, it really needs to be legislated on in Parliament. There needs to be strict regulation to protect people from murderers seeking to use euthanasia as a pretext for their killing.
To legalise this sort of thing through the common law would be incredibly dangerous.
If something like this is to be made legal, it really needs to be legislated on in Parliament. There needs to be strict regulation to protect people from murderers seeking to use euthanasia as a pretext for their killing.
To legalise this sort of thing through the common law would be incredibly dangerous.
That's the thing -- it is legislated already. The legislation says it would be murder, so the only way this can ever be allowed is through politicians changing the law in parliament.
Original post by Cll_ws
It's stupid really, the choice should ultimately come down to him because nobody else knows exactly how it feels to live his life and the suffering he goes through at the hands of his situation.
It's so easy for a judge to simply say no, and then go back to living their own lives where they're able to do things for themselves, hug their loved ones, even talk to people without a person there to translate their blink signals!
It must be absolute agony to sit there day after day, unable to move or talk, especially considering the fact he once could do these things! It's just not something many people would be able to get used to.
It's so easy for a judge to simply say no, and then go back to living their own lives where they're able to do things for themselves, hug their loved ones, even talk to people without a person there to translate their blink signals!
It must be absolute agony to sit there day after day, unable to move or talk, especially considering the fact he once could do these things! It's just not something many people would be able to get used to.
The judges can't say 'yes', murder is against the law. The law must be changed for euthanasia to be allowed and only parliament can do that.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should I go into Vet med?
- Euthanasia EPQ questionnaire
- Medicine EPQ ideas
- OCR A Level Religious Studies Religion and ethics H573/02 - 14 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- i.r.a.c method
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- essay question
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- For and Against essay
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Help me to refine my EPQ Question.
- Religous studies Gcse
- Epq 2023
- veterinary nursing diploma to vet med
- 48/50 A* EPQ Available for any help! :)
- EPQ euthanasia primary research
- Maths Question
- Problem Solving
- 2022 exam paper philosophy of religion,ethics and Buddhism.
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
