Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
"Careful what you wish for, I guess" - That's what he wanted.
God, I feel so silly now!!
They could play that at his funeral.
Or did a doctor/family members/friend kill him?
I think starvation was the only 'legal' avenue open to him, right?
I assumed it'd take more than week...
Maybe he was already staving himself before the ruling
surely it wouldn't take a whole month?
But for all we know he may have started to starve himself in the run up to the judge's decision just in case he got the wrong result (which turned out to be the case).
Just speculation of course, I have no evidence.
I got that in first
lets let sleeping dogs lie eh?
Given the judge's ruling, if it wasn't starvation then someone's going to get arrested for murder, right?
So that's that.
Probably because they don't need to and your boyfriend is just being hideously tedious as usual.
to find out the exact cause of death. The police won't get involved at this stage but after that if the findings come back as assisted or suspicious, they'd investigate....I would have thought any way.
what purpose would that serve?
to cost the all ready heavily endebted UK economy more needless expense?
to upset the family further?
to further demonstrate that the state thinks that they own our bodies and not ourselves?
"Heavily indebted UK economy" - needless hyperbole.
In this case it's obvious that the police seem happy that he died of natural causes. That said, if they weren't happy that this were the case, they would have a legitimate case to investigate (this does not mean that I would recommend prosecution if a family member had ended his life, given the circumstances).
"What purpose would a post mortem serve?"
(I notice you do not bother dismissing the other two rhetorical questions that I asked)
If it was foul play, the court judgement last week would mean there would need to be a murder investigation.
because of appearances.
Just because of last weeks court judgement, does not mean that there will need to be a murder investigation
One purpose would be to see how he died. Heart failure, lung failure, smothered, drugs etc etc.
I understand that they're not doing it but its not such a far fetched thought that it would be investigated due to recent events.
do you think that it would help the british legal systems reputation if they did a Post mortem and found that someone had helped carried out his wishes out of compassion and then they banged the compassionate person up in prison?
Do you think that by banging up such a person, that the streets would be freed from a dangerous murdering maniac?
So you think that this would serve as a deterrent to others in the future who would otherwise possibly assist someone in great distress, to make them cowed and to realise that their own humanity and compassion is less important than the process of (what we all admit in this case) a flawed and inadequet law?
trying to be humane and pragmatic about this, but stupid pedantry from some people could make this more difficult
Rule of Law - something something
I am not going to go down that root however.
Look he law has not worked this issue down to the finest granular level, the law can be changed bu tthat takes time.
Laws can be open to interpretation, and in this case one could try to interpret the INTENT of the law, and the intent is to not create a legal loophole where there is a danger that difficult to keep alive people are just switched off.
If in this case the police are happy that there is no crime to answer for (I mean by that real crime, not just technical) then it is fair enough that they use their interpretation of the intent behind the law, yes this is open to abuse, but it already is, and in this case the eyes of all of us are judging.
Try to have more confidence and belief in humanity rather than just the letter of the law.
The law can keep us safer, but not completely, and relying on the letter is not always a strength, you cant just sit back and rely on it to do everything for you/us.
We are a democracy and we have a voice, its not just meant to be at election time, you people talk of the benefits of our 'superior education' and debate, well now is the time to exercise it and use it to benefit and aid compassion upon which we all agree to
Threads over guys, everybody out!
Far more worthy of a "thread's over" command
It was not me that brought up 'Rule of law' spectre.
In democracies the rule of law is meant to be there for the benefit of the people and society, not to punish and rule them with.
nor does following rules and laws absolve you from guilt regarding humanity or compassion. you cannot use the excuse 'dont blame me for someone elses extreme suffering (that we could easily help) because its the law'
the myth that 'you are ok as long as you are only following the law'
A) Please don't belittle other people with sensible arguments.
B) English law states you can't give permission for someone to kill you. Until this is changed, which should be done by Parliament, rather than the courts, the taking of an individual's life by another needs to be investigated.
C) It needs to be investigated, but the CPS would not have to bring it to court. There would be such an outcry that even if it was brought to court, it is incredibly unlikely that she would be convicted.
The rule of law needs to be followed until it is changed. I support a change in the law allowing people in the same situation as Tony Nicholson to formally request for someone to end their lives when they are going through the same hell as he did. But you can't just ignore legal process just because it's an incredibly sad case.
and defend them? to the point of hurting people? when the people (police) who administer them have adjudged that there is not a case? you are seeing things too black and white.
Peoples detached and remote'sensible' arguments do not warrent respect when compared with others extreme distress.
Still no one has answered what purpose would be served by investigating this further, other than those who wish to persue something with a pedantic fervour
It's part of the social contract.
its a concept in the mind of a few, there are no definate agreed aspects to any social contract, and there is no evidence that anyone has agreed or signed it
"Peoples detached and remote'sensible' arguments do not warrent respect when compared with others extreme distress."
I'm sorry but that's an incredibly backward and dangerous principle to base a society upon.
we are talking about a rather granular and unusual aspect of the law here, which you seem to be imagining is black and white, and are chosing to be willing to interpret in a way that is discompassionate.
This is not a situation that faces people all the time, I feel that anyone with someone they loved, in real distress who realy realy wanted out, is the person who should be thoiught of most after the persons death. I think that all of us would come to feel that out loved ones wishes should be respected/followed, i think that human values love and compassion are more important when that immediate, than a technicality of the law that has not yet managed to sort itself out.
So yeah, Im on this side, and you seem to be positioning yourself on another side.
and i do not have respect for your position.
in fact people like you frighten me, especially if you were in power or authority
That doesn't sound right.
with the slant you have put on it.
Quite obviously here i am being motivated by compassion for others, not selfish greed, or personal gain.
I thought this compassion would have been common to our liberal populace, but from the reactions here this is obviously not the case, i was wrong in this regard.
Sincere humanity/compassion does not arbitarily pick and chose its values, they well up within you and you cannot control what you feel is cruel or not.
Interestingly English Law itself recognises that sometimes the letter of the law IS NOT what the judiciary intends, sometimes it recognises that it would like to allow human circumstances to overide the letter of the law if cruelty or unfairness would result.
In the Law of contract Lord Denning introduced the idea of 'Equity' that the wording of contracts and letter of the law should not be used to create great unfairness, and that using contractual law in the courts should be used as a shield not a sword.
I really object to the rabid attacks against humanity and compassion, by people in this thread, where they seem to think they are defending something small and weak (the law) when in fact the law is big and robust, and in itself admits that the pure unthinking application of it, can result in injustices that it does not really desire to see.
And the law is written and enforced by people.
Just because you don't like that law, doesn't mean you have the right to ignore it. If everyone had that ability, chaos would ensue.
I'm not sure how upholding the law here is being motivated by 'selfish greed' (which by the by is like saying something's 'massively big', no need for both) or personal gain?
when the ignoring of the law is motivated by compassion and humanity, when international law has said that if humans merely follow laws blindly (irrespective of the humanitarian consequences) then they could be prosecuted under international law.
Although I do to some extent agree with you. According to international law, The US/UK should not have invaded Iraq, but as their actions were based on compassion and humanity, I'm cool with it.
and the reason is blatantly obvious.
I dont mind belittling other people when they are putting forward insensitive uncompassionate pedantic arguments
I think you're Creaky.
There's little "tells" there in his posting style, stuff like not starting sentences with capital letters and such.
It should just depend on how you feel when you get out of bed on any particular morning.
I don't know why you can't see that. It would establish a precedent for future 'right to die' cases. At the moment, as confirmed by the judge last week, assited dying in the UK is illegal (according to the legislation). If it was established in this case that assisted dying is illegal unless [insert set of criteria], then that would change the legal precedent.
You could argue that in this case it's quite black and white as it was long documented that the man was of sound mind and wanted to die. But if the legal precedent is changed and there were a number get out clauses for those who assist others in dying, it could get very messy in future, less clear cases.
I hope he has found the peace he craved.
I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like for him.
Imagine that, but all the time (minus the hallucinations)
From the article above:
He died of natural causes
Before he died, he asked us to tweet: ‘Goodbye world the time has come, I had some fun’”
How did he know he was about to die if it was from natural causes? I think the police need to investigate this further.
what purpose would it serve?
how would it benefit anyone?
If the police feel it warrants an investigation or cause of death is unknown, a post mortem will be done. Otherwise it won't be
The debate is currently in Parliaments court. Their decision whether or not to proceed with debate.
seems very odd.
Though I would also have no problem with the police paying no attention to this whatsoever.
TN: When I die, can you tweet this from my account?
Family: Yeah, no problem
Not that complicated, is it.
i guess it couldnt have been YEARS ago.
so he didn't just pass away in his sleep. He probably suffered and knew it and told his family to tweet that. He also probably told his family he loved them etc
though it did read as though he had said it contemporaneously.
If I asked my family to do that, my death would pass with the tweet *LOL I AM A BENDER*
if you're at the stage when you're in so much suffering that you want to be euthanased, then it should be allowed. obviously i wouldn't go as far to say this man was 'lucky' to die, but it's what he wanted and was denied. if he did die of natural causes, he should of been allowed to die a week earlier under his own conditions.
nothing will ever change until the majority of people in the UK drop their puerile attitude to death.
<Slow shake of the head>
I wonder if common sense might have - secretly - prevailed. I don't normally like making statements like this about things of which I know little... but he has apparently refused food since last week's ruling. And, well, erm, doesn't someone else have to feed him? And if they didn't feed him, this would inevitably lead to his death? And weren't people banned from assisting his death? This, and the fact that the police have said "there's nothing to investigate, since the coroner have signed off on it".
I should say I'm only speculating based on what I've read. This is only my take on it, and should in no way be construed as fact. It's just my own thought process.
not "have". Duh.
It would take alot longer than a week for it to kill him
and are in a weakened state, I'd imagine it'll be less.
On the other hand, Ian Brady refuses to eat and they plug him into a drip containing three squares a day.
He refused food, then caught pneumonia.
Someone on my facebook feed said “Everybody wins”. Nobody “liked” it.
1) the police and the gov have limited resources, money, time and prison spaces, This has been admitted in such controvercial stories as 'we have to let em out early so we can fit new uns in' and "I give him a pittance of a sentence for a crime that you would think would warrant more, but I cant cos the prisons are bursting"
and 'police are short staffed, so if you phone about an intruder downstairs, be prepared to wait for a couple of hours for a response'
So I guess the police have weighed up the merits of this event and decided that is not sensible to spend lots of money chasing the possibility that someone has helped someone out of pity and love
(and inadvertantly committed a technical crime that isnt really a crime in anyones human eyes (by anyone I mean me, your naan, judges, the police, the deceased, a sun reader, a guardian reader, a telegraph reader, a times reader))
when the resource could be better used elsewhere to answer 999 calls quicker, or lock up a dangerous person for a safer length of time
It's really sad the whole thing, Christ.