Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Laws should be enacted for the public good not for the wishes of a minority OR a majority.
tony nicklinson - 'locked-in syndrome'
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
Laws should be enacted for the public good not for the wishes of a minority OR a majority.
I hope he wins his case.
Poor guy deserves to be able to end it with dignity, and the same for those suffering painful terminal illness that will kill them eventually.
You wouldn't keep your pet dog in a state like this just because it could remain 'alive' - you'd put it down. Can't we finally get to the same place for humans?
Poor guy deserves to be able to end it with dignity, and the same for those suffering painful terminal illness that will kill them eventually.
You wouldn't keep your pet dog in a state like this just because it could remain 'alive' - you'd put it down. Can't we finally get to the same place for humans?
I think its a sad indictment that to avoid offending people (mainly ones in religious groups it has to be said, though some also in disability groups who think this is some sort of fatwa) we can't have a grown up approach to what is a terrible dilemma.
It isn't your life, it is his, and he wants it to be done and the only way he can end it would be to starve himself to death. Can you actually imagine what that would be like for him and his family.
I don't really get why religious people are not first up to the podium wanting the change on the law on these things because isn't religion mean to be about compassion and tolerance and all that jazz? I think it should be a right to exercise this sort of control and it hurts no one. The only one hurt by not letting him do this is him.
It isn't your life, it is his, and he wants it to be done and the only way he can end it would be to starve himself to death. Can you actually imagine what that would be like for him and his family.
I don't really get why religious people are not first up to the podium wanting the change on the law on these things because isn't religion mean to be about compassion and tolerance and all that jazz? I think it should be a right to exercise this sort of control and it hurts no one. The only one hurt by not letting him do this is him.
where would you draw the line? imagine if it was a member of your family.
either see them live out the rest of their years miserable and being a burden on the rest of you all (which is something nobody wants to be) or put them out of their misery like they want to?
Well there could be if an innocent man was just about to hit the Nuke launch button because he slept walked into the white house and thought he was in staples.
It really does confused me as to why assisted suicide is illegal. What is lawmaker's rational for it?
I presume of course that it is that way in order to avoid foul play, where people can get away with murder using the "assisted suicide" excuse but surely there are ways to overcome this such as certain requirements as:
1)Terminal illness that can not be cured and brings a lot of suffering
2)Decision must not be made if medically depressed (ie decision is valid only if the patient is of sound mind)
3)During the "event" to have a police representative and a doctor to nulify chances of foul play.
People have the right to do whatever they want with their own body/life and as far as I know there are no negatives externalities, meaning assisted suicide legality would actually improve quality of life for society as a whole (family members can live their life)
I presume of course that it is that way in order to avoid foul play, where people can get away with murder using the "assisted suicide" excuse but surely there are ways to overcome this such as certain requirements as:
1)Terminal illness that can not be cured and brings a lot of suffering
2)Decision must not be made if medically depressed (ie decision is valid only if the patient is of sound mind)
3)During the "event" to have a police representative and a doctor to nulify chances of foul play.
People have the right to do whatever they want with their own body/life and as far as I know there are no negatives externalities, meaning assisted suicide legality would actually improve quality of life for society as a whole (family members can live their life)
And what is the public good in letting him, and those like him suffer needlessly? There are people that are in situations where nothing is left but death, and for those people the manner of death matters a great deal, a potentially long drawn out death, with suffering for not just the person dying but those around you, or a short and painless death assisted by medical professionals who can ensure that that strict guidelines that can be set out are followed and that it is humane as possible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
The good of society as whole.
The only reason for it is religious nutjobs that want to force their dogma on other people. They should be free to say they disagree, and free to try to persuade people not to do it, if they choose to. But they cannot be allowed to force other people to adhere to their religion and that is at the very core of a free society.
I don't see the good in it.
I see a sort of self interested superiority in it, but not any good.
I think that sort of 'good' is really the sort that keeps people under control in societies with no rights.
This man has a life that people here who dearly love their pets wouldn't put a pet through. And the solution for the good of society is to force him to live like that or starve himself to death. I struggle to see the good in that.
No, you have completely missed mine. People die, a lot. It's not nice but it happens. Sometimes its completely natural, sometimes its not. Who are you, or I, or anyone to deny this man to choose it on his own terms. His mind is healthy, he has come to the decision himself, so why not?
This guys life is daily torture, last I checked, that was illegal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 8,876
- Location
- Hoddesdon, London, UK
Thank science that horrible institution is dying a slow death.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Otherwise it cheapens life and you run the risk of people being pressured into killing themselves. Even if just one person is pressured into this by a family fed up with things it is one too many.
Going to bed now so I will leave you all to this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
Having watched my father die in agony 3 years ago from lymphoma, words fail me when I try to express my contempt for people like you Spud By Night. The fact that you think people should be forced to endure such torment in order to simply satisfy your own dogmatic view of the world disgusts me.
Practice your religion as you see fit for all I care, but your wish to force suffering on others to satisfy your own beliefs is nothing short of revolting. It's their life, not yours.
Practice your religion as you see fit for all I care, but your wish to force suffering on others to satisfy your own beliefs is nothing short of revolting. It's their life, not yours.
I'm not about to explain what circumstances in my personal life have me feeling the same contempt for Spud, but I'm in full agreement with Funktopus.
The point about changing the law is to avoid people being pressured by putting in proper safeguards. And to protect people using the law.
We have a situation where people who take their relatives to Dignitas are effectively ignored by the legal system when the law states they should be prosecuted. That means the law is bad in my view. I'd rather they made better laws and then there wouldn't be these ambiguities.
We have a situation where people who take their relatives to Dignitas are effectively ignored by the legal system when the law states they should be prosecuted. That means the law is bad in my view. I'd rather they made better laws and then there wouldn't be these ambiguities.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 11,431
- Location
- Derbyshire
If I every have a stroke, am in a serious accident that ruins my life, or have terminal cancer etc., then I truely hope someone close to me in my life can end it for me.
I would much rather leave this world with my veins full of morphine that to die a long, slow, painful death.
For all humanities faults, the worst by far is not allowing people to choose to leave this world on their own terms. If I was seriously ill I would want to end it when I choosed to, not when my body literally dies.
I would much rather leave this world with my veins full of morphine that to die a long, slow, painful death.
For all humanities faults, the worst by far is not allowing people to choose to leave this world on their own terms. If I was seriously ill I would want to end it when I choosed to, not when my body literally dies.
Last edited:
i'm not so sure he wants to force suffering on people and we're on very dodgy, slightly hypoctical ground to say he is wrong but the fact is that the way he is thinking isn't archaic (i'm sure not so long ago anyone in this mans condition would've gone 'missing' and maybe a little less long ago would've been in an asylum) but it is the wrong way of thinking imo, there's little point in existing like this, his family will find no joy in it and obviously neither does he. this is not what life is about and i don't see how any religious argument could say it is.
we should be progressing this in this country. the man is able to tell us he wants to die, his life isn't a life, it's an existence which requires a lot of care. i'm sure most people would feel the same as tony nicklinson.