Tony Nicklinson loses right to die case

Osprey said:
People, especially vulnerable people can be manipulated. The system would never work flawlessly, and ultimately there would be a regrettable outcome. In Germany for example, a guy manipulated a 'friend' into believing that if she ended her life, she would be re-incarnated into a better, more wealthy position. The case is here, although it's in German.

I am not saying that assisted suicide is the wrong course of action, I am saying it is not as simple as some in this thread believe it to be.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more - wish I'd known about that German case, illustrates the point I was trying to make far better than Terri Schiavo.

My feeling is that a majority of the population are in support of euthanasia one way or another, though whether or not these beliefs are based on an emotional rather than rational decision I don't know. And really, if it were to become legal this is something we could not afford to get wrong in terms of making sure that only those who are are in possession of enough of their mental faculties to make the decision properly are permitted to exercise their right to die.
 
yeah that was the one, seen the documentary where the people travel to Switzerland but as you say they have to do everything alone and have to be able to take the last drink on their own.
 
Speaking as someone fully in favour well regulated euthanasia I think the court has made the right decision. As the law stands it would be illegal for someone else to kill him. It is not really the courts place to change the law but enforce/interpret it.

Unfortunately it is up to parliament to change the law meaning we won't see it any time soon as, politically, it is far to contentious an issue for political party to get behind.
 
I'd describe myself as pro choice, a position I've took since watching my father pass away from lymphoma just under four years ago. Pro-lifers, especially the religious fanatics among them should have witnessed my dad's final days, I'd imagine they wouldn't see God's will in any of that as my dad used the last of his strength to cry out in agony.
 
I haven't actually looked into this as much as I'd like; however here's my general view on euthanasia:

Presuming said person in question, has a degenerative, uncurable disease, that will basically eventually leave them either in intense pain or in a shell... then they should have the option.

Perhaps there should be set diseases, conditions etc... that you must fall under... but yeah... pro-choice

kd
 
It's a real shame he lost his case, its a sad place that makes a man live as he does not want to or starve himself to death. It is very sad he is not able to take his own life and the only decent other option has been removed.
 
he is of sound mind he should be able to choose which he has done the only problem is he cant carry it out himself to suggest he has to starve himself to get out of his misery is cruelty in the extreme

let him have his way it was sad to see him cry in front of the cameras i had a tear for him

give him his wish
 
Theoretically, if his computer controls the movement of his wheel chair. Could he be driven by car to a cliff edge (by his wife), then control his wheel chair (via his eyes) to fall off? Would the wife be to blame?
 
It should be legal for someone to obtain a licence to die.
In extreme cases such as this. And especially in terminal diseases which cause a great deal of pain and suffering.

Yes it is a slippery slope, but if the courts weren't lazy and blind they would see a highly regulated system should be in place.
The oath doctors take to do no harm should extend to having the ability to end lifelong suffering of a patient, but the courts would rather see the patient in constant pain up until death, the doctors unable to do anything to help them.
And then risking their careers to do what is right by their patient.

If they treated every case individually and brought in the correct parties to make an informed and humanistic decision, I cannot see the issue.
 
Last edited:
If he was a animal he would have been put to sleep because it was the humane thing to do. If he was a animal and you made him carry on as he is you would be prosecuted for animal cruelty. It's disgusting that someone should have to carry on suffering trapped in a shell of a body that he cannot interact with. I for one would not want to "live" like that after all, it's not really living.

I watched my father in law die from terminal cancer and saw him go from a proud, fit man to somone who was in constant agony and could'nt control his bodily functions. He was a lovely man and it was heart breaking watching him slowly suffer. If it was me i would have wanted to put an end to things. All these lefty pro-lifers are doing is making people suffer. Surely it should be within a persons own human rights to decide how they want to die?
 
Bloke reaches the point where there is only the thought of constant pain and neverending physiological decline without any medical treatment possible - access to humane death denies

Bloke decides to seek comfort by getting a dog. Said dog gets run over and is in constant pain with only the possibility for neverending physiological decline without any medical treatment possible - the vet says he will prevent further suffering and humanely assist a death.

Great state of affairs we have when animals have more human rights than humans do. :confused:
 
Theophany said:
I'm curious as to what you mean by this? I'm not sure how the clinic works, so forgive my ignorance. But he is paralysed from the neck down, so how could he kill himself? Surely if he could do this he already would have done...
Click to expand...

Dignitas is a special clinic in Switzerland that allows people to take their own lives.

Basically they visit the place first to be explained how it works, then if they wish to go through with it, they have to undergo a full mental health check. When they are finally ready, they come back, have another check and then are given a lethal cocktail to drink which induces coma and then death.

There are couple of important aspects to it, firstly its recorded on video so that a legal statement is made by the person wishing to die. The second and biggest one is that the cocktail has to be drunk by the person wishing to die with no interference.

There was a BBC 2 Documentary at the end of last year called 'Choosing to Die' fronted by Terry Pratchett which explains it all and goes as far as to show somebody actually dying on the programme. Found it online here:
http://vimeo.com/25239708

During the part where the guy takes his life, his wife is not allowed to even touch him as he dies, as it could be seen that she is helping him and thus could be seen to be assisting in it. That is why you see the Doctor telling her not to touch him.

So I think in Tony Nicklinson's case, Dignitas won't work for him because it still requires him to drink the liquid without the aid of anyone else, which he can't do. I'd seen talk of Nicklinson going there if he could afford it, but I'm sure its fruitless and given the media interest, if that was a viable option, I would have thought a generous party would pay for the trip.
 
I hope they don't get to the stage where his wife kills him and then has to be arrested and tried for it. I can just see as it goes on and on how desperate they would all get.

Terrible really.

As you say Dignitas cannot really work for him as he cannot take his own life. If he could I think he would have done it by now.

I found the documentary quite strange really, on the one hand it was quite shocking, on the other I think I was concerned that people effectively have to go there when they could still carry on living for longer because they have to be able to travel and able to take the medication themselves. I felt the man in the film feared waiting and then losing the right to do it by not having the capacity. I think that was deeply sad.
 
We have no (legal) control over anything. We don't choose to be born or to live and we cannot, apparently, choose to die either.

I think legal voluntary assisted euthanasia is the sign of a truly advanced civilisation.
 
Some people here seem a little confused. It is NOT illegal to kill yourself. What is illegal is to kill someone else, even if they ask you too. the problem is not so much situations like this one, but the slippery slope it leads to: grandparent not dying soon enough even though they are very ill? Kill them, fake their signature on a piece of paper, say they asked you to. Possible? Of course? Likely? Probably. This is mainly the law keeping the situation absolutely clear.

However...

It seems to me that when someone goes to court repeatedly, and can be interviewed by a judge to make sure pressure is not being put on them by relatives, wriggle-room should be allowed. But I think EVERY case should go before a court, and an appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom