Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well said D-usa!

I think its quite hard for us to grasp how this guy must have felt... try not to move AT ALL for like half an hour, and then imagine what it'd be like to be in that state for more than half a decade. I think I'd go crazy.

I've been pretty ambivalent towards this case, I agree with euthanasia but I'm not really passionate about it.

However now facebook groups saying "RIP Tony Nicklinson" with comments saying "RIP! So sad that he died!", can people seriously be so stupid? It's sad that a man, who is famous for wanting to die, died?

It looks like he didn't need the court's permission anymore.

"The law is well established" .....

Just another case where the law is wrong.

EDIT:
Also: "Pro-Life" groups has again shown that they have no idea what Life really is:
Existance do not equal Life.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I've been pretty ambivalent towards this case, I agree with euthanasia but I'm not really passionate about it.

However now facebook groups saying "RIP Tony Nicklinson" with comments saying "RIP! So sad that he died!", can people seriously be so stupid? It's sad that a man, who is famous for wanting to die, died?

He had pneumonia and then stopped eating which compounded his illness. So yeah, I'd say that was pretty sad.

The man wanted a dignified death, but it's good he is at peace now.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
I've been pretty ambivalent towards this case, I agree with euthanasia but I'm not really passionate about it.

However now facebook groups saying "RIP Tony Nicklinson" with comments saying "RIP! So sad that he died!", can people seriously be so stupid? It's sad that a man, who is famous for wanting to die, died?

He had pneumonia and then stopped eating which compounded his illness. So yeah, I'd say that was pretty sad.

The man wanted a dignified death, but it's good he is at peace now.

How he died is sad, but that's not what the idiots are saying.

They're saying it's sad THAT he died because they have no idea who he even is, they just see a "RIP X" page and post.

That's just the typical FB bandwagon rolling its way through, people are showing they "care" about something they don't even know about or understand...

/cynicism

If it gets his message to more people then it's tolerable in my book.

This had nothing to do with pro-life, or religion, but a point of English law that someone wanting to die dose not excuse someone from a murder charge and that Judges cannot make the law just because they want too, and that laws cannot and should not be changed biased on one case.

He was not in pain and he did not die by starving himself to death but of pneumonia. He refused food, but if that was due to feeling to ill to eat or because he was trying to starve himself to death we just don't know.

Why can people not have a discussion on here without bitching about religion like idiots parroting the same idea again and again "religion is bad religion is bad squawk".

Have you people never meet someone who is paralised in some way? Most of them get on with life and make the best they can and would be horrified to think someone thinks they should die. Equally there are many people who want to die because of any number of problems in there lives. Should we legalize all assistance with suicide? It is not as simple as "horrible people won't let him die" and NOTHING to do with religion. Religious groups may have a say, but so are you.

Steve steveson wrote:
This had nothing to do with pro-life, or religion, but a point of English law that someone wanting to die dose not excuse someone from a murder charge and that Judges cannot make the law just because they want too, and that laws cannot and should not be changed biased on one case.

He was not in pain and he did not die by starving himself to death but of pneumonia. He refused food, but if that was due to feeling to ill to eat or because he was trying to starve himself to death we just don't know.

Why can people not have a discussion on here without bitching about religion like idiots parroting the same idea again and again "religion is bad religion is bad squawk".

Yes, It had nothing to do with pro-life or religion... until pro-life activists and religious people started attacking his cause and wanted to forbid it.
And while he might not have been in physical-"ow-that-hurts"-pain, he was still suffering from not being able to move at all, not being able to scratch his itches, chew his food etc etc for 7 years.

Have you people never meet someone who is paralised in some way? Most of them get on with life and make the best they can and would be horrified to think someone thinks they should die. Equally there are many people who want to die because of any number of problems in there lives. Should we legalize all assistance with suicide? It is not as simple as "horrible people won't let him die" and NOTHING to do with religion. Religious groups may have a say, but so are you.

What kind of argument is that?? Tony Nicklinson wanted to die, that has nothing to do with other paralyzed people!

"Under our system of government these are matters for Parliament to decide."

Exactly. The judge had no choice but to rule the way he did. Judges don't make law. Parliament does.

This story is a sad one, but if people are to be allowed assisted suicide, Parliament will have to approve it.

If someone wants to die you can't stop them. If they have the will and a way their is nothing to be done, but watch them go. In the old days of older worlds the family had the right to end the life of the member should that member request it and be unfit. So if a father requested to be killed by his son; the son could do so without penalty from any form of government. Of course a official would be brought to witness the deed; to insure it was what the dying and or disabled family member truly wanted and wasn't some form of power struggle in the family. I can't see why parliament would not rule in the mans favor. I wish the case was brought to a jury and not solely on the judges hands. It would have felt more fair in that case; if it was someone correct me, i did not follow this situation closely.