Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Tony Nicklinson loses euthanasia case

Scroll to see replies

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.

Seriously? Your complaining about unelected judges choosing not to overturn an elected parliaments decision?

Reply 81

jeh_jeh

Original post by James82

Nobody defines his circumstances other than himself, only he can weigh up the options open to him and decide that given his circumstances which is the best course of action to take. Clearly he felt that the right course of action was to fight in the courts, and I have no complaints about that, were I in his situation I would be looking for the easiest way out and may well have taken the same course of action. However, the judges reached the correct decision, both from a legal and moral point of view that only he can be responsible for ending his life.

As for the Paralympics they are a manifestation of a social guilt for how disabled people were treated in the past. They are on a par with the MOBO awards, which are perfectly acceptable in our society, but if there was a MOWO awards there would be uproar.

Legally, yes (to be honest, I have no gripes with today's verdict - judges can't change laws), but I guess we're never going to agree on the moral front.

But lol at the Paralympics comment. But, meh, that isn't the thread for this.

Reply 82

Brachioradialis

Original post by Hopple

He doesn't decide someone's future provided he isn't campaigning for doctors or anyone to be forced to kill him should he wish. If someone volunteers for it (like a relative or a compassionate doctor), then that's their choice.

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

As you know euthanasia is, unfortunately, still illegal and therefore it would be classed as a murder.

If you guys really find it that despicable, campaign your MPs for change. The only reason they don't petition it in parliament is because there isn't support and they're scared of losing their seat. If you want change, go enforce it.

Reply 83

SubAtomic

During seeing the TV program with Mr Nicklinson I felt very bad for him, I was probably emotional, what he is going through must be comparable to torture, if I had what he had and I couldn't be put out of my misery legally then I would hope someone would find a 'DIY' alternative for me, people create legal highs to get around the law all the time, so create a 'legal' euthanasia but obviously keep it controlled.

So, make up the alternative drug for me, program a death button into that visual device I can use by myself, hook me up to the IV with the drug, like one of those morphine type things, then I would do it myself if I wanted.

Sounds morbid but no way would I want anyone caring for me in that way, I don't think I could handle it, to be unable to communicate verbally in a quick coherent way all of a sudden, and to have total physical independence and lose it all would be a fate worse than death, for me anyway.

We take so much for granted as able bodied people. Poor guy. :frown:

Thinking about it why can't they just convert the machine so someone with Mr Nicklinsons condition can use it?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 84

XxelliexX

I think this is horrible. It is the man's life, he should be able to do what he wants with it. The government shouldn't be able to control when people can and can't die. He's obviously had a lot of time to think about it, it's not a spur of the moment thing. And a lot of physically healthy people that want to commit suicide want to because they just feel hopeless and that nothing will ever get better for them, which, for many, is not the case. However, if this man's life really IS hopeless, and there really ISN'T any chance he will get better, and he is really not enjoying his life at the moment, I think it is his decision. If one of my family members honestly felt so hopeless and depressed and desperate and were unable to kill themselves but desperately just wanted their life to end, I would seriously consider doing it myself, I'd rather go to prison than see a loved one suffer so pointlessly and unbearably.

Reply 85

James82

Original post by MattKneale

The definition of murder:

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

There is no legal definition of murder, it is a common law offence.

Reply 86

Brachioradialis

Original post by James82

There is no legal definition of murder, it is a common law offence.

What do you mean there is no legal definition? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#murder

"Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

•

of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);

•

unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);

•

any reasonable creature (human being);

•

in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;

•

under the Queen's Peace;

•

with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)."

Reply 87

James82

Original post by SubAtomic

During seeing the TV program with Mr Nicholson I felt very bad for him, I was probably emotional, what he is going through must be comparable to torture, if I had what he had and I couldn't be put out of my misery legally then I would hope someone would find a 'DIY' alternative for me, people create legal highs to get around the law all the time, so create a 'legal' euthanasia but obviously keep it controlled.

So, make up the alternative drug for me, program a death button into that visual device I can use by myself, hook me up to the IV with the drug, like one of those morphine type things, then I would do it myself if I wanted.

Sounds morbid but no way would I want anyone caring for me in that way, I don't think I could handle it, to be unable to communicate verbally in a quick coherent way all of a sudden, and to have total physical independence and lose it all would be a fate worse than death, for me anyway.

We take so much for granted as able bodied people. Poor guy. :frown:

Thinking about it why can't they just convert the machine so someone with Mr Nicholsons condition can use it?

I think you'll find that if you, or Mr Nicklinson, did that then whoever set the machine up would still very likely be found guilty of murder.

Reply 88

TimmonaPortella

Original post by James82

There is no legal definition of murder, it is a common law offence.

It is possible to formulate a descriptive definition. No remotely accurate definition would contain the word "premeditated", though.

edit: there's also a definition in Coke's institutes which is thrown around an awful lot.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 89

James82

Original post by MattKneale

What do you mean there is no legal definition? http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#murder

They are just CPS guidelines based on legal precedent of a common law offence, there is no legal statute stating that murder is illegal, it is only illegal because of precedent.

Reply 90

SubAtomic

Original post by James82

I think you'll find that if you, or Mr Nicklinson, did that then whoever set the machine up would still very likely be found guilty of murder.

What, even if the machines in Switzerland were converted to make someone like Mr Nicklinson able to use it?

He can give consent so don't see the problem really.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 91

Negaduck

Original post by bananaslug77

So suicide is illegal in this country, but no one in their right mind would press charges against some poor depressed (but able bodied) person who attempts but fails to commit suicide. Yet a disabled person is totally isolated from this sympathy clause just because they can't physically end their own life? Riiight...

Suicide isn't illegal. Assisted suicide is.

Reply 92

TimmonaPortella

Original post by James82

I think you'll find that if you, or Mr Nicklinson, did that then whoever set the machine up would still very likely be found guilty of murder.

Someone hasn't read Kennedy (no 2). You'd probably be guilty of assisting suicide though, which is a distinct offence.

Reply 93

onda

This is a very sad case. I honestly do not understand why the judges have denied this man his wish to die :frown:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 94

Manitude

Doctors have to promise to do no harm. The way I see it, by keeping him alive they are doing more harm than if he were to have a dignified, controlled death.

Reply 95

zaliack

Original post by MattKneale

Nope; it's still murder in the eyes of the law. The same situation would apply in the more bizarre (but not unheard of) situation of people who ask to be killed and then eaten by others. Just because you ask someone to do it doesn't mean it's not murder.

The definition of murder:

As you know euthanasia is, unfortunately, still illegal and therefore it would be classed as a murder.

If you guys really find it that despicable, campaign your MPs for change. The only reason they don't petition it in parliament is because there isn't support and they're scared of losing their seat. If you want change, go enforce it.

Actually, euthanasia isn't murder, it is assisted suicide contrary to s2 of the Suicide Act 1961.

Reply 96

TimmonaPortella

Original post by zaliack

Actually, euthanasia isn't murder, it is assisted suicide contrary to s2 of the Suicide Act 1961.

No, it's murder. You seem to be confused as to what "euthanasia" is. It is a different thing to assisted suicide. Euthanasia involves someone being killed by someone else.

Reply 97

DaveSmith99

Disappointed with the verdict, watching the interview with him and his wife was horrible, he was clearly devastated.

Reply 98

Brachioradialis

Original post by James82

They are just CPS guidelines based on legal precedent of a common law offence, there is no legal statute stating that murder is illegal, it is only illegal because of precedent.

I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but the actus reus of murder is:

the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace

and the mens rea:

the intention to kill or intention to cause GBH

Aren't these principles actually the legal statutes within common law? Actus reus in particular is necessary for someone to be liable of a crime.

I really genuinely could be mistaken, but just because something is a common law offence surely that doesn't mean it's not still illegal? If it's merely based on a precedent, which case was that?

Reply 99

James82

Original post by SubAtomic

What even if the machines in Switzerland were converted to make someone like Mr Nicklinson able to use it?

He can give consent so don't see the problem really.

Obviously there is no definitive answer, purely due to the nature of murder being a common law offence, but given those circumstances and precedents I would guess there is a high probability that the person setting the machine up would still be found guilty of murder.