Tony Nicklinson loses right to die case

[DJMK4]

Couldnt this reflect badly on the whole media/law if he went and now took his own life without any assistance, rather than being able to be granted to a professionally assisted death.

 

[Raikiri]

It is not really the right to die.
It is the right to authorise someone to murder you without consequence.

Which in this situation is the same thing. He is incapable of doing it himself, the person carrying it out would simply be acting as a proxy for him.

Hmmmm

What are the current rules for shutting down life support?

I think it first goes to the persons will (i.e. do not resuscitate), then to whoever has power of attorney. If neither of these are available you probably need a court order.

I would class this as the same situation, only he has the power of attorney over himself.

 

[Moothead2]

Hmmmm

What are the current rules for shutting down life support?

If you're on life support are you not basically dead anyway? You can't murder a dead person .

 

[Destination]

Which in this situation is the same thing. He is incapable of doing it himself, the person carrying it out would simply be acting as a proxy for him.



I think it first goes to the persons will (i.e. do not resuscitate), then to whoever has power of attorney. If neither of these are available you probably need a court order.

I would class this as the same situation, only he has the power of attorney over himself.

Might be wrong, but isn't the term 'power of attorney' not banded about incorrectly, I thought it relates purely to the management and adminsitration of a person's wealth and belongings, rather than their medical state of health and case.

If someone refuses treatment, no matter how bad the decision would be for them, no 'power of attorney' can overrule it, but they can stop them spending their money.

 

[Raikiri]

Might be wrong, but isn't the term 'power of attorney' not banded about incorrectly, I thought it relates purely to the management and adminsitration of a person's wealth and belongings, rather than their medical state of health and case.

If someone refuses treatment, no matter how bad the decision would be for them, no 'power of attorney' can overrule it, but they can stop them spending their money.

A health and welfare Lasting Power of Attorney is specifically the one that covers medical decisions, afaik.

 

[Energize]

I would get some barbiturates and do it myself for my own family or friends, ethics > law.

 

[Wucked]

No, suicide isn't illegal. Prisoners are allowed to starve themselves to death, if sound of mind, for example.

That's even more crazy then. I was thinking of Ian Brady, who went on starvation ~7 years ago but is being force fed nutrients because he's in a HS mental hospital. But if you're a child murderer in prison and deemed sound of mind, then its ok..?

Right, so its fine to starve yourself to death in prison. But its not ok for Tony Nicklinson, or is it? Its still classed as suicide isn't it?

 

[Xordium]

Docs will do things like turn life support off for people with no hope, even if its against their families will, but as long as you're able to experience pain and suffering on a conscious level they wont let you die.

It is very very rare that a decision to withdraw treatment without a families consent will be taken because most people are sympathetic to the plight of fellow humans who are suffering whether they be close to them or not. The second part of your post is also incorrect.

 

[Moothead2]

That's even more crazy then. I was thinking of Ian Brady, who went on starvation ~7 years ago but is being force fed nutrients because he's in a HS mental hospital. But if you're a child murderer in prison and deemed sound of mind, then its ok..?

Right, so its fine to starve yourself to death in prison. But its not ok for Tony Nicklinson, or is it? Its still classed as suicide isn't it?

They can't do anything if he decides to starve himself. His family just wants him to go in a much quicker, less painful way.

 

[KNiVES]

Why do I get a feeling religious doctrine is involved in this?

 

[Wucked]

It is very very rare that a decision to withdraw treatment without a families consent will be taken because most people are sympathetic to the plight of fellow humans who are suffering whether they be close to them or not. The second part of your post is also incorrect.

It is? Sorry. Ok, so whats the deal with Tony then? He cannot request assisted suicide, support to be withdrawn, or starve himself to death because... He has an acceptable quality of life? Because he's conscious? Because he's not of sound mind? Because he has no rights over his own life? I really don't understand.

 

[justintime2001]

Personally, I am an advocate of self determined Euthanasia and I think the attitude of 'life at any cost' has far too many religious overtones and is just wrong.

It's my life, of course I should have the right over it to choose when I want it to end, which being an abled bodied person currently I do have, it's called suicide.

The poor guy in this case is telling us his life is a living nightmare, which he has to suffer every day. What on earth has he done to justify being made to suffer in this way, even the most heinous criminal gets treated more humanely.

Now, we are all fully aware of the abuse of the system that could happen and I am sure we can put enough checks and balances into the process to mitigate these.

Totally agree, well said!

 

[Wucked]

They can't do anything if he decides to starve himself. His family just wants him to go in a much quicker, less painful way.

They can't? But if he requires complete assistance for everything, including sustenance, wouldn't starvation involve withdrawing that assistance, and hence become assisted suicide..?

 

[hurfdurf]

Why do I get a feeling religious doctrine is involved in this?

The SPUC and other religious groups (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia) that celebrated this are seem so illogical, but in reality know exactly what they are doing. They are pro life and pro misery to punish people for what they see as immoral lifestyles and a natural punishment from "God".

Because it's not really saving life that motivates most of them, it's using an unwanted pregnancy to punish someone for being sexually active. It's a form of control, and propaganda against others considering sexual activity.

Religion needs wiping out.

 

[Xordium]

It is? Sorry. Ok, so whats the deal with Tony then? He cannot request assisted suicide, support to be withdrawn, or starve himself to death because... He has an acceptable quality of life? Because he's conscious? Because he's not of sound mind? Because he has no rights over his own life? I really don't understand.

He cannot request assisted suicide: because the judge feels that is a question to be answered in parliament through a change in law. Something I agree with

He cannot request support to be withdrawn: he is not supported to the extent that withdrawal would cause an immediate and final end for example he is on a ventilator which when stopped would mean he no longer could take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide.

He cannot starve himself: because to do so would cause incredible suffering to him and a prolonged and painful death. Therefore, the medical staff would have an ethical obligation to feed him to prevent this.

 

[antijoke]

Beat me to it (was going to post thread about this).

I fully support their fight for the right to die. I don't really understand why euthanasia is viewed as such a bad thing. This man is clearly in pain and is of sound mind to make such a decision. I can only imagine how he feels right now. I mean to have lived such an active life for so long. To then have it taken away so aggressively by an illness like this is truly sad.

We live in a country where a lot of us wouldn't be able to stand seeing our pets/domestic animals (let's throw horses into the mix too) in excruciating pain. So much so that we see no problem putting them to "sleep". Why can't the same token be passed on to people?

Crazy world we live in.

Totally with this guy! If he was a pet it would have been done and dusted by now without a care given by anyone.

 

[Wucked]

He cannot request assisted suicide: because the judge feels that is a question to be answered in parliament through a change in law. Something I agree with

He cannot request support to be withdrawn: he is not supported to the extent that withdrawal would cause an immediate and final end for example he is on a ventilator which when stopped would mean he no longer could take in oxygen and remove carbon dioxide.

He cannot starve himself: because to do so would cause incredible suffering to him and a prolonged and painful death. Therefore, the medical staff would have an ethical obligation to feed him to prevent this.

But there is no such ethical obligation with prisoners?

So I'm correct in saying that one is legally able commit suicide in this country, but only through starvation, and only if you're in prison.

 

[lunarwolf]

don't think we can legislate this with one broad stroke. it should be done on a case by case basis. I empathize with mr Nicholson's plight; however, a law in favor is a slipery slope and ripe for abuses i.e. relatives that want to inherit, insurance companies that want to cease treatment, etc...

at the end of the day i doubt a jury would convict mr Nicholson's wife if she gave him a lethal cocktail.

 

[Xordium]

But there is no such ethical obligation with prisoners?

So I'm correct in saying that one is legally able commit suicide in this country, but only through starvation, and only if you're in prison.

There is a balancing act with starvation . It matters not whether the person is in prison or not the duty of care remains the same well civilian anyway. The two conflicting positions would be:

1) Duty of health professionals to preserve life and health
2) Right of the patient to make an informed refusal of a medical procedure/intervention.

Now there is clear guidance on what to do in these circumstances and one of the big ones is to not 'force feed' as long as the important part is true (which I have highlighted) ie an informed refusal. Forced feeding is seen as inhumane and degrading and yet it occurs so many times across this country and others every day that it is commonly taught and used.

Anyone can starve themselves to death if they so wish. However, they would have to amply demonstrate an 'informed' position. The very nature of the effects of hunger on people over time would make the ability to make a repeatedly informed opinion quite hard. As this is something that will constantly be discussed and reviewed you tend to have 'feeding' occur due to activation of practices allowed by relevant Mental Health legislation. Once someone is sufficiently debilitated how can you continue to say they are making an informed refusal and would not have changed their mind once the illness really takes hold.

With say prisoners obtained under rendition held in Cuba by the yanks there is another dimension there in that the doctors are also held accountable to army regulations. It is quite an interesting one but there is quite clear guidance for it.

Edit: To answer the starvation = assisting etc then there are two things at play:

The act of assisting someone die - eg massive dose of morphine.
The omission of an act assisting someone to die - eg letting them not feed.

Withdrawal of treatment deals with the second part - the omission of an act where as the law in this case concerns the former - the act of assisting. Semantics maybe but important semantics.

 

[Moothead2]

They can't? But if he requires complete assistance for everything, including sustenance, wouldn't starvation involve withdrawing that assistance, and hence become assisted suicide..?

Yeah, I did think about that after I posted that. They're in a very tricky situation. I'd like to think that if I cared so much about a loved one that I was seeking legal rights to assist them with suicide I would be willing to risk going to prison to put them out of their misery if all legal avenues had been tried.