Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
people are dying here. well, trying to anyway
I, in this case, think its harrowing to see a man not able to take his life. However, if the Judge ruled in favour it would open a whole can of worms. Its for Parliament to decide.
What Nicklinson in particular is asking for is a judge to change murder law without parliamentary consultation. It's not within the court's power or appropriate if it were.
That's not to say I don't think he should be allowed to die but it needs a democratic and carefully worded change in the law that protects people with locked-in syndrome/terminal illnesses that don't want to die whilst ensuring that those that do want to die can do so.
It's massively dangerous if courts start setting laws. There's a reasonable case to be made that the fact that abortion in the US legalised via Roe vs Wade rather than by government process is a huge contributory factor in why abortion is so divisive there whereas it's far less so in most other democracies.
Of course, it doesn't help this poor guy whose daily suffering will go on for now.
I really wish the law would be fucking changed though.
Or because you disagree with assisted suicide?
I should have clarified a bit and been less flippant (I have now) but I think it would be wrong and dangerous for a judge to take this momentous a decision based on one case.
I'd be curious to hear a compelling case for not allowing assisted dying. So far I've mainly heard the idea that suddenly doctors are gonna go Shipman all over the place which isn't very convincing.
I get that a judge would be reticent about ruling on an individual case- it's quite heavy for a piece of case law, but what's the case against an act being passed. Has a bill been drafted and failed? Who knows their shit on this?
Or old people who need daily, very expensive care/help may be putting a huge financial strain on the rest of the family who need to pay for it (perhaps even selling their house and so on), so the old person feels really guilty about this and asks to be killed off early to ease the pressure on others.
without me even having to suggest it
The judge is 100% correct by saying that this is for Parliament to decide and change the law, not for a court.
Front page of the Independent today, heart breaking
But it's the right decision.
The idea that people would suddenly start bumping off rich parents speaks of a particularly pessimistic view of people.
I for one don't murder, or go around ending lives not because it is illegal, but because it is wrong.
To think that people would all of a sudden be ok with assisting the death of unwilling people just because there is a legal provision is a bit mental.
how hard can that be?
"It was the right decision" in this thread - you tell him that.
I used it to mean legally correct because of the dangerous precedent that would be set otherwise.
but imagine if someone, who has become interested in these cases, were able to acquire the means of ending the Mr Nicklinson's life painlessly, so they just anonimously made their way to his home, explained themselves to him and his partner before ending his life (with consent of course). It would be murder...but presuming they are careful it would be very hard for the authorities to convict the right person. Just a thought.
I mean who is going to prosecute them, if they dont know who it was?
(10) volunteers could go into his room, draw straws (that cannot be seen) they all turn round and face away. Ther person with the short straw administers the morphine.
The guy dies peacefully and painlessly.
If no one says then the court cannot prosecute them all, they actually have to be able to prove which one of them did it and prosecute them.
Bingo! that is the way around this 'technicality'
Because there was a case where there was a child who was killed
and basically the prosecution was convinced that it was either the mum or the dad(not both), but they couldnt prove which, so they both got off (which is somehow terrible.....but in the circumstance we are talking of it wouldnt be)
Its also not unreasonable for there t obe volunteers to do this either, because there have been people who have risked and incured penalties to help people in these situations in the past.
then you can bet that the courts and parliament would sort out something a damn sight quicker
9 of them dont know who did it, nor did they in any way do any actions that directly contributed to the death
the point is that this will give a technical opportunity for the courts to not issue punishments that no one would want to see (not even the courts)
meaning everyone involved and who came up with the plan would all be punishable?
i'm not saying it's right or wrong though. just saying
in court they could be said to be giving alibis/covering up who did it, aiding and abetting the perp evade prosecution?
Except each one of them could say, "Well, i didnt realise you would do me for this, and if I could I would tell you who it was, the problem was, that I don't know who did it and it wasnt me" If all 10 of them say that the court cannot prosecute, and, since we are assuming that there is no great will to prosecute, the court would not be too creative in actually proving that they were guilty of something
it seems pretty simple
but something along these lines
I mean, for 9 of the ten, the "arrangement" only goes so far as being present in their house and drawing a straw. Of course we know that they have the knowledge that they were there for a different purpose, but is this provable or even prosecutable?
it becomes fairly obvious
whether it is necessary for the straws to be brought up by the ten volunteers...or would they just stick to the story that ten of them entered the room, and a lethal injection was administered. No more
They wouldn't actually have to handle the equipment.
They would all have to be willing to kill the person in question if they received the short straw, which makes them all accessories
One person does administer the injection...but there is no way of knowing if the other nine would have carried it out when it came to it.
but I think in a court, for intent to be proven, it would have to be clear that the volunteers would have carried out the murder were they required. Something we could never know
if they were all there, in the room ostensibly willing to administer a lethal injection illegally, having arranged this in advance with a random means of selecting the killer, I don't see how they could not be considered having the intent to murder
that but worded properly
So maybe you're right, maybe I am.
would the court consider it murder? or unlawful killing.....arggggh this is horrible trying to discuss the technicalities when its all just about someone who is really suffering, and trying to stop that.
ffs why don't they just sort it?
in the context which I am using...
the above adds nothing. just saying, like