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.
2012/08/17 23:29:05
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
A man paralysed from the neck down has lost his High Court case to allow doctors to end his life without fear of prosecution.
Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, communicates by blinking and has described his life as a "living nightmare" since a stroke in 2005.
Mr Nicklinson said he would appeal against the decision.
The case went further than previous challenges to the law in England and Wales on assisted suicide and murder.
Another man, known only as Martin, who is 47, also lost his case to end his life with medical help.
'Misery'
Father-of-two Mr Nicklinson was left paralysed with locked-in syndrome after a catastrophic stroke while on a business trip to Athens.
He said he was "devastated" by the court's decision.
"Although I didn't want to raise my hopes, it happened anyway because a fantastic amount of work went into my case and I thought that if the court saw me as I am, utterly miserable with my life, powerless to do anything about it because of my disability then the judges would accept my reasoning that I do not want to carry on and should be able to have a dignified death.
"I am saddened that the law wants to condemn me to a life of increasing indignity and misery."
Explaining the decision, Lord Justice Toulson, said both cases were "deeply moving".
However he added: "A decision to allow their claims would have consequences far beyond the present cases. To do as Tony wants, the court would be making a major change in the law.
"It is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place.
"Under our system of government these are matters for Parliament to decide."
The case differed from other "right-to-die" cases which have focused on assisted suicide. Mr Nicklinson would be unable to take lethal drugs, even if they were prepared by someone else.
For someone else to kill him would amount to murder.
'Right decision'
The rulings were welcomed by the group SPUC Pro-Life. Paul Tully from the organisation said: "Compassion and solidarity are the humane and caring responses to locked-in syndrome. To legalise killing of those who are suffering would adversely affect many, many people.
"We trust that today's judgment will help end the insidious campaign in the British courts to change the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia."
The British Medical Association said the court had made "the right decision".
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
For most people the debate is often remote from ordinary lives but for me, the debate on assisted dying is truly a matter of (an unhappy) life and (a pain-free) death”
Tony Nicklinson in his own words
Dr Tony Calland, from the BMA's medical ethics committee, said "The BMA does not believe that it would be in society's best interests for doctors to be able to legally end a patient's life.
"The BMA is opposed to the legalisation of assisted dying and we are not lobbying for any change in the law in the UK".
'Untenable'
During the hearing in June David Perry QC, who is representing the Ministry of Justice, said Mr Nicklinson's "tragic and very distressing circumstances evoke the deepest sympathy".
"Notwithstanding the distressing facts of his situation, the defendant submits that the claim for declarations is untenable. The law is well established," he added.
The case was contested on the issue of "necessity" arguing that the only way to end Mr Nicklinson's suffering is to allow him to die.
This was used in 2000 when conjoined twins were separated, saving one even though doctors knew the other would die.
Mr Nicklinson's team also argued that his case is covered by Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights which deals with the right to respect for private and family life.
So.... what do you guys think about this?
I think they should allow him to escape his misery. Its inhuman to let him suffer for years when he has clearly expressed his will to die. I mean, if an animal suffers from something only half as bad this man is, everyone urges the owner to put it out of its misery. Yet if its a human being, you have to keep it alive no matter what.
And if they really don't want to alow someone to end his ife, they should at least allow him to take drugs to ease it!
It's morally ridiculous to deny this guy the right to take his own life but unfortunately there are still idiots who believe in dogmatic bs who would rather see him live out his life in pain.
2012/08/18 00:23:13
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
What the judge actually said was that it would be unlawful to do so, and that parliamentarians would have to do it - the judge himself was sympathetic to the man's plea.
Obviously this is problematic as our politicians are spineless populist cowards and will only ever do anything if opinion polls and focus groups point them towards it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 00:45:33
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
2012/08/18 00:47:08
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
George Spiggott wrote:The harm is that it could open the floodgates for vulnerable people with similar conditions being killed against their wishes.
I wish there was some way to help this guy and ensure the protection of the others.
There is, you follow the wish of the person in question, and allow him/her to die if they wish to do so. It really doesn't get any more complicated than that. But people have built themselves into a system of rules, and idiots who can't see beyond what is allowed or what isn't, who also don't think beyond what the rulebook allows them to is setting human advancement back by hundreds of years in every possible way. I shouldn't even say that they think at all. To do so would be to assume that their brains are working correctly. It might seem like they would be smart and sensible people seeing as most have studied law, and since they were chosen for such positions of power, surely they must have some type of qualification for the job, but then you see them questioning and debating the most irrelevant and most unrelated of things that has to do with, really anything that they were specifically appointed for. Then you realize that the sensible and smart people are the ones who wouldn't stick around to work amongst idiots. Unfortunately, these idiots who can't see past themselves or the rules they learned to live by are in positions of power. That is the biggest problem around the world. They are a problem because they refuse to understand that action and vitality is what spurs success...not the bs that they subject themselves to daily
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 01:22:09
I will forever remain humble because I know I could have less.
I will always be grateful because I remember I've had less.
2012/08/18 01:23:40
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
LumenPraebeo wrote:There is, you follow the wish of the person in question, and allow him/her to die if they wish to do so. It really doesn't get any more complicated than that.
It isn't about allowing him to die. Someone else would have to kill him. So yes it is more complicated than that.
I'm not opposed to assisted suicide but any law(s) that allow it need to be very carefully thought out.
There is, you follow the wish of the person in question, and allow him/her to die if they wish to do so. It really doesn't get any more complicated than that.
Yes it is. In this case, someone else will have to kill them. In particular, a doctor, who, amongst other things, has taken a oath to do everything he can do stop death.
But people have built themselves into a system of rules, and idiots who can't see beyond what is allowed or what isn't, who also don't think beyond what the rulebook allows them to is setting human advancement back by hundreds of years in every possible way.
Yeah, not being able to kill someone because laws say so is such a pesky thing, gawd, I wish everyone would have the decency to understand when laws aren't to be followed. I mean, laws are only so because their convenient for me right now.
I shouldn't even say that they think at all.
Yeah, thinking is so overrated.
It might seem like they would be smart and sensible people seeing as most have studied law, and since they were chosen for such positions of power, surely they must have some type of qualification for the job, but then you see them questioning and debating the most irrelevant and most unrelated of things that has to do with, really anything that they were specifically appointed for.
Gawd you are so right! Lawyers and judges really are just morons that discuss pointless things unrelated to the case, such as consequences! The possibility that such laws would be abused by unscrupulous family members or doctors without any possibility of reparation of harm is really really so irrelevant! There really never were any such case, nor were they ever turned into blockbuster movies.
Unfortunately, these idiots who can't see past themselves or the rules they learned to live by are in positions of power. That is the biggest problem around the world.
For sure. The biggest problem in the world is lawyers and judges applying the laws. Not famine. Not the inability to react quickly to disasters. Not the few disastrous human crisis currently going on in some countries. Lawyers and judges not allowing doctors to kill their patient because laws are against assisted suicide is the biggest problem in the world.
Thank you for your insights.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/18 02:07:25
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/08/18 02:20:59
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
George Spiggott wrote:The harm is that it could open the floodgates for vulnerable people with similar conditions being killed against their wishes.
I wish there was some way to help this guy and ensure the protection of the others.
Well they could allow assisted suicide, but always have someone double-check the situation before.... and maybe the patient should have the wish to die for at least a year before it is actually carried out.
The centre of a massive brood chamber, heaving and pulsating.
Somebody let this man die peacefully. To do otherwise is just cruel.
Squigsquasher, resident ban magnet, White Knight, and general fethwit.
buddha wrote: I've decided that these GW is dead/dying threads that pop up every-week must be followers and cultists of nurgle perpetuating the need for decay. I therefore declare that that such threads are heresy and subject to exterminatus. So says the Inquisition!
2012/08/18 11:39:34
Subject: Re:Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
The thing that annoyed me the most about this case, or at least the "discussions" leading up to it all had religious leaders speaking their mind.
Religion is all fine and dandy, I avoid it and it avoids me, but why should some Church or Creed that you're not a part of have any say in how we choose to die?
Assisted suicide should be given for those able to communicate. In saying that, if I was in vegetative state i'd prefer to die, how do you legislate for that? Have people make a will.
I'm assuming taking the man to a Dignitas clinic is out of the question?
George Spiggott wrote:It isn't about allowing him to die. Someone else would have to kill him. So yes it is more complicated than that.
I'm not opposed to assisted suicide but any law(s) that allow it need to be very carefully thought out.
Nope...they want to die, someone certified to pull the plug should do so. There's no thinking it out carefully, either something is murder and against the victims will, or the person wanted to die, and someone performs euthanasia. There will have to be rules on what can and cannot be done, as well as special circumstances. They would like you to think that its more complicated than that, but death or no death is a very simple thing. It comes naturally, we've developed tools to make it happen, and it is easy for us to perform an act of murder. There will always be those who do it for good, and those who do it for bad. Why is it bad to end someones suffering? Against your beliefs? Religion? Would you force someone to live through something they don't want to? Will you limit how a person wishes to die? If not, then why is it complicated?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yes it is. In this case, someone else will have to kill them. In particular, a doctor, who, amongst other things, has taken a oath to do everything he can do stop death.
Yeah, not being able to kill someone because laws say so is such a pesky thing, gawd, I wish everyone would have the decency to understand when laws aren't to be followed. I mean, laws are only so because their convenient for me right now.
Yeah, thinking is so overrated.
Gawd you are so right! Lawyers and judges really are just morons that discuss pointless things unrelated to the case, such as consequences! The possibility that such laws would be abused by unscrupulous family members or doctors without any possibility of reparation of harm is really really so irrelevant! There really never were any such case, nor were they ever turned into blockbuster movies.
For sure. The biggest problem in the world is lawyers and judges applying the laws. Not famine. Not the inability to react quickly to disasters. Not the few disastrous human crisis currently going on in some countries. Lawyers and judges not allowing doctors to kill their patient because laws are against assisted suicide is the biggest problem in the world.
Thank you for your insights.
It sounds as if its sarcasm. Why do you disagree?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/18 15:47:22
I will forever remain humble because I know I could have less.
I will always be grateful because I remember I've had less.
2012/08/18 16:08:34
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
LumenPraebeo wrote: Nope...they want to die, someone certified to pull the plug should do so. There's no thinking it out carefully, either something is murder and against the victims will, or the person wanted to die, and someone performs euthanasia.
Except that isn't the case here. There's no plug to pull. He's paralysed not on life support.
I don't know all the circumstances of every euthanasia case that has happened or will ever happen. I do know that I want some independent body or group to think very carefully about the merits of each case before we let very vulnerable people be deliberately killed. I'm not opposed to an individual's right to die.
They really should have let him die otherwise..... its sad he had to hunger himself to death. But then again, its also good that he finally got what he wanted all the time!
At least he was able to slowly and painfully starve himself to death, that way nobody has to feel the guilt of letting him die comfortably and humanely.
2012/08/22 21:28:47
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
d-usa wrote:At least he was able to slowly and painfully starve himself to death, that way nobody has to feel the guilt of letting him die comfortably and humanely.
QFT and well said.
Sometimes, the world we live in makes me sick.
2012/08/22 22:14:07
Subject: Paralyzed Englishman loses High Court case to allow doctors to end his life
d-usa wrote: At least he was able to slowly and painfully starve himself to death, that way nobody has to feel the guilt of letting him die comfortably and humanely.
Can't argue with that. The interveiw that his wife gave after the verdict with Mr Nicklinson in the back ground clearly in great distress was not a comfortable thing to hear.
By all means set up safeguards to prevent vulnerable people from being killed but as it stands vulnerable people are being left to die in horrific conditions; this man spent 7 years only being able to communitcate with his eyelids. The sanctimonious dribbling that prolife groups spewed out over this case is frankly sickening and the sooner parliment gets its act together on this the better (even though that will probably take decades given the near uselessness of politics these days).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/22 22:15:13
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
