deathtothepixies
Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012 Status: offline
|
Should this man be able to end his own life in a dignified manner? At the moment the only way for him to end is life is by starvation, which he says would be a very slow and painful death which would be witnessed by his wife and daughters. My personal opinion is that his life sounds like a living hell, and if I were in his shoes I would be doing whatever I could to end it as soon as possible including starvation, but he seems to be a nicer/braver guy than me and he doesn't want to put his loved ones through that and he is also prepared to fight for the rights of people in a similar position and for those who will come after him. Has medicine moved on so fast that the law has been left behind? I am guessing that the massive stroke that left him like this would have been fatal50 or 100 years ago, maybe even 20 years ago so this type of question would never have asked in the first place. What role if any does religion have to play in this? I imagine some religious groups will always be against anything that prematurely ends life, whatever the quality of that life. Are too many of our laws based around religious beliefs that for a lot of people are no longer relevent? What do you guys think? Is that far too many questions?? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17336774 Tony Nicklinson, who is paralysed and wants a doctor to be able to lawfully end his life, should be allowed to proceed with his "right-to-die" case, a High Court judge has ruled. The 58-year-old from Melksham, Wiltshire, has "locked-in syndrome" following a stroke in 2005 and is unable to carry out his own suicide. He is seeking legal protection for any doctor who helps him end his life. The Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would change murder laws. "Locked-in syndrome" leaves people with paralysed bodies but fully-functioning minds. Locked-in syndrome Condition in which patient is mute and totally paralysed, except for eye movements, but remains conscious Usually results from massive haemorrhage or other damage It affects upper part of brain stem, which destroys almost all motor function but leaves the higher mental functions intact The judge's ruling now means that Mr Nicklinson's case will go to a full hearing, where medical evidence can be heard. Following the judge's ruling that his case can proceed, Mr Nicklinson's wife Jane read out a statement from her husband on BBC 5live. It said: "I'm delighted that the issues surrounding assisted dying are to be aired in court. Politicians and others can hardly complain with the courts providing the forum for debate if the politicians continue to ignore one of the most important topics facing our society today. "It's no longer acceptable for 21st Century medicine to be governed by 20th Century attitudes to death." 'Stressful' wait Mr Nicklinson, who communicates through the use of an electronic board or special computer, said before the ruling that his life was "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable". During the radio interview, Mrs Nicklinson passed on questions to her husband, using his letters board to spell out his response. When asked what he hoped would happen next, he replied: "I will be able to access a doctor when the time is right." He went on to spell out: "I can just about cope with life at the moment, but not forever." Mrs Nicklinson said she was "really pleased" with the judge's decision. "It's been quite stressful waiting for this decision. "It's really good to know that the judge thinks that we have a case that needs to be argued." Earlier, Mrs Nicklinson said that her husband "just wants to know that, when the time comes, he has a way out". "If you knew the kind of person that he was before, life like this is unbearable for him," she added. She said she did not know when her husband might actually want to die. "I suppose just when he can't take it any more," she said. Legal arguments Mr Nicklinson, who has two grown-up daughters, launched a legal action seeking court declarations that a doctor could intervene to end his "indignity" and have a "common law defence of necessity" against any murder charge. But David Perry QC, representing the Ministry of Justice, told the High Court that Mr Nicklinson "is saying the court should positively authorise and permit as lawful the deliberate taking of his life". He added: "That is not, and cannot be, the law of England and Wales unless Parliament were to say otherwise." Solicitor for Tony Nicklinson Following his ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Charles said the case's issues "raise questions that have great social, ethical and religious significance and they are questions on which widely differing beliefs and views are held, often strongly". He said the issues before him only related to whether Mr Nicklinson's arguments "have any real prospect of success or whether there is some other compelling reason why these proceedings should be tried". Mr Nicklinson's solicitor, Saimo Chahl, said the next step was for the courts to examine "in great detail what the individual circumstances of the case are before authorising any steps to be taken". "It would all be extremely carefully controlled and vetted before any doctor were given permission - were we to be successful. "And you have to bear in mind actually that this is a case which is likely to go further, which is likely to end up in the Supreme Court one way or another, before the law is changed." BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman says the case goes beyond assisted suicide as Mr Nicklinson's paralysis is so severe it would prevent him from receiving assistance to kill himself and he would have to be killed - and that would amount to murder. He says Mr Nicklinson is seeking a court declaration based on his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention - in effect saying that in his circumstances, his right to life includes the right to end his life in a humane manner of his choosing.
|