Right to die

nonumb

Well-known Member
Tony Nicklinson has lost his court case allowing him to be killed by a doctor.

What are your opinions on this? Personally I think that it his absolute right to die if he wants to. He is clearly miserable and suffering, and it's obvious to me that he is not making a rash decision.

Imo if any of his organs are suitable for transplant he should be allowed to die and give up his organs so that others who want to live can.
 

liamt

Member
i agree.

my father has parkinsons and is a shell of the man i once knew. he asked me many years ago that if he ended up in a real mess if i would sort him out. at the time i said yes but every year i can now see it getting closer to that. scary as hell.

at the end of the day i would put a sick animal down if it had zero quality of life. why not the same with a human?

the problem, of course, is the people who will try to abuse it to get rid of old granny who is loaded.
 

wookielover

Well-known Member
Its not so much his right to die as more the rights of the Dr to avoid jail for murder/manslaughter.

But he should be allowed to end his life and at least have that control.
 

nonumb

Well-known Member
liamt said:
i agree.

my father has parkinsons and is a shell of the man i once knew. he asked me many years ago that if he ended up in a real mess if i would sort him out. at the time i said yes but every year i can now see it getting closer to that. scary as hell.

at the end of the day i would put a sick animal down if it had zero quality of life. why not the same with a human?

the problem, of course, is the people who will try to abuse it to get rid of old granny who is loaded.
Sorry to hear about your dad, a friend of mines mum has ms and often doesn't know who he is.

If the law were to be changed then there would be massive safeguards in place to ensure that you couldn't bump off old relatives, but in a case like this I can't really see why not. He is of sound mind, wants to die and can't. He is miserable and suffering.

I agree with the point about animals but it is different because the animal cannot communicate its wishes but this man can.
 

TONYELISE

Novice Member
i agree.

my father has parkinsons and is a shell of the man i once knew. he asked me many years ago that if he ended up in a real mess if i would sort him out. at the time i said yes but every year i can now see it getting closer to that. scary as hell.

at the end of the day i would put a sick animal down if it had zero quality of life. why not the same with a human?

the problem, of course, is the people who will try to abuse it to get rid of old granny who is loaded.
Me to
My mum passed a few months back with parkinsons and the last year or so was terrible,as you said if she was a animal she would have been put down ages ago what was worse was the fact when she was first diagnosed she immdiately saw a solictor signed a dnr and told us all when it got to the point she could not eat or drink anything just to be left to die we had all this in writing and when we looked into taking her abroad we was told we could be charged,i really understand your pain and my deepest sympathys to you and your family.
 

liamt

Member
he has enough medication to nicely slide away if he needs to. he has been stockpiling them for ages.

its shocking what they can put people through though. i also get annoyed when the church churp in about stuff... i mean if there is a god, he didnt design us very well did he? look at all the problems we can have.
 
i hate it when old people have dementia and have no idea how to take care of them selves who they are or who anyone else is. what kind of quailty of life is that? why are they forced to remain alive
 

Philly112

Distinguished Member
i hate it when old people have dementia and have no idea how to take care of them selves who they are or who anyone else is. what kind of quailty of life is that? why are they forced to remain alive
Well that's actually a completely different situation. Someone with dementia has little or no 'soundness' of mind to be able to make a decision as to whether they want to die or not.

Phil
 

paulyoung666

Distinguished Member
he has enough medication to nicely slide away if he needs to. he has been stockpiling them for ages.
but he needs someone to give them to him , and therein lies the problem , i would be very surprised if the law ever gets changed .....
 

nonumb

Well-known Member
paulyoung666 said:
but he needs someone to give them to him , and therein lies the problem , i would be very surprised if the law ever gets changed .....
Think he was referring to his dad, not the case.
 

MarkR

Well-known Member
This really is a very tragic and sad case and my heart really goes out to him and his family. I was angry when I heard the verdict earlier and it was more upsetting seeing Tony's reaction.

I can understand the reasons for the verdict as it would be an open ticket for open murder. I think the way it should be done would be for a new law to come into place where each severe case such as Nick's should be assessed by a panel which then gets approved. I know it sounds extreme but at least each case would be unique and justified.

I personally think it should be up to the individual if they live or die providing they are sound of mind but I do not think this will ever happen.
 

nonumb

Well-known Member
MarkR said:
This really is a very tragic and sad case and my heart really goes out to him and his family. I was angry when I heard the verdict earlier and it was more upsetting seeing Tony's reaction.

I can understand the reasons for the verdict as it would be an open ticket for open murder. I think the way it should be done would be for a new law to come into place where each severe case such as Nick's should be assessed by a panel which then gets approved. I know it sounds extreme but at least each case would be unique and justified.

I personally think it should be up to the individual if they live or die providing they are sound of mind but I do not think this will ever happen.
Indeed I don't think anyone thinks it should be an easy process and the way you say is fair.
 

BB3Lions

Distinguished Member
So heart wrenching to see his emotional out pour like that.

If it was someone I loved so much I'd assist him knowing ny time in jail would be easy as I would not feel any guilt..
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
I think the pertinent point in all of this is that quite rightly, the courts have refused to rule as ultimately it's a case for parliament to answer, not the courts.

The law as it currently stands will prosecute anyone who assists the death of someone else, it's high time our elected representatives got their finger out, debated it properly and changed the law.
 

EarthRod

Distinguished Member
What's the difference between someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail and injecting it into a person and killing them, and someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail injecting it into a person and killing them?
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
Alan CD said:
What's the difference between someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail and injecting it into a person and killing them, and someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail injecting it into a person and killing them?
I've read your post a few times and can't see one.
 

Rock Danger

Distinguished Member
What's the difference between someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail and injecting it into a person and killing them, and someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail injecting it into a person and killing them?
Is this a trap?:confused:
 

Rock Danger

Distinguished Member
Where does the do no harm thing come from and why is it against the law still in extreme cases? Was this founded on religion by any chance? Because it sounds something that was bore out of that kinda ********.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
What's the difference between someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail and injecting it into a person and killing them, and someone loading a syringe with a lethal cocktail injecting it into a person and killing them?
The "and" is missing from the second scenario... :rolleyes: does that change the meaning?

Or am I inadvertently going grammar police on you/ :blush:
 

EarthRod

Distinguished Member
OK, moving on. Assume the first scenario is premeditated murder. What is the second part?


(IronGiant: the missing 'and' is only a writing mistake!) :)
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Understood :smashin:

OK, the first must involve malice aforethought to be murder, the second could involve compassion aforethought, so would still be an unlawful killing but not murder.
 

alphaomega16

Distinguished Member

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Home AV, TV, Tech News & Reviews, Plus The Best of July 2020

Trending threads

Latest News

JBL launches 4349 Studio Monitor
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
LG Display next generation OLEDs showcased at SID 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 2nd August 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom