Be Excellent To Each Other

I know this is a massive topic, and there will rightly be much discussion about this over the current days, but I'm a tad confused. The Independent today carries quite a string image on its front page (attached).

I thought locked in syndrome was where a person couldn't move any muscles in their body apart from sometimes their eyes. Tony Nicklinson appears to have at least some other communicative powers of his facial muscles, so rendering this picture as powerful as it is.

I've just had a quick Google and it seems mostly to back up what I thought.

The pain on his face is more than any words could communicate. I'd want to die, too, in that kind of life.

Front page

That decision defies belief. The poor, poor man.

Is this the man who can only communicate by looking at letters on a board in front of him?

A terrible decision from the judge.

I'm of the firm belief that, in the right circumstances, people have a human right to voluntarily end their own life.

I'd certainly not want to keep going in his situation, it's no life at all. Hats off to him and his family for attempting to go about this through the proper channels, this bringing attention to it all. It must have been really tempting to get it over and done with in an "easier" way.

It is pretty fucking disappointing, and not just because I want that option available to me if I'm ever in his position.

The thing is, the law is the law, and this case is nothing new, this doesn't fall into an area where the HRA can't override other legislation, so tough. Changing the legislation is the only way forward, which will surely happen one day, but a long time in the future, due to firstly needing to build in a whole flotilla of protective measures (which are absolutely, 100% necessary and time should be taken over this), and to tell the church to STFU.

Absolutely.

Wasn't the problem the fact that he couldn't kill himself, but someone else would have to do it. That person would then be guilty of murder. So he was looking fir an assurance that the person that set the ball in motion wouldn't be prosecuted. And the judges said 'no'. Judges dislike to make law, especially in something like this. Was it the right decision? Probably, under existing legislation. Should the law be changed? Probably.

I agree with ApplePieofDestiny. I was going to write something very similar, but probably not as eloquent.

Not really. The judge simply does not have the power to alter the law to that extent. His summation showed that it is a procedural issue rather than a denial; it has to be changed by Parliament, not by a judge looking at an individual case.

Tragic, but that's the way our system operates.

Absolutely. The judge can't open a loophole that scumbags can use to justify murder.

"He told me he wanted to die, your honour". Brrr.

So you don't think chappy here deserves to be allowed to die?
Cor.


If that was a member of my family I'd kill them, right now, and make sure to tell the press I had done it, and why. I some ways, I'd welcome the trail.

I think he does deserve to be allowed to die, but someone else would have to kill him.

This would be murder.

He wants whoeer killed him to not be prosecuted.

This causes some problems.

Judges said "No, sorry, too far".

He deserves it if he truly wants it. However, the law doesn't currently allow it, as he cannot kill himself.

They make a fair point but no Home Secretary is going to introduce that legislation...not in the foreseeable future anyway.

Absolutely.

If he was able to do it himself, I'm sure it would have happened already. And in response to Grim..., I abhor suicide as I've seen the way it tears people and families apart first hand, but this is different. His family is in total agreement with him. Of course he should be allowed to die, but there should never be a loophole in the law that lets people get away with murder.

But it is murder, so you can't have one without the other.

Allow me to re-bolden.

So you're saying that he should be allowed to die, but no-one should be allowed to kill him?

Also, as you haven't previously boldened, you can't be re-boldening ;-)

You can kill animals when their quality of life becomes non-existent...

Humans are animals...

Yep. It's a shame he's unable to even tip himself onto a button or pull a plug himself, but that's the rules. He doesn;t want anyone to suffer for him. Hence the court case.

Shush

Well, then you're sort-of saying he shouldn't be allowed to die.

Also, "the rules" also state that he's not allowed to kill himself.

Incorrect. Suicide has not been a crime since the 1961 Suicide Act.

It's very complicated isn't it? When you take suffering into account, at what point do you let someone who's suffering die?

Well, that's dull.

Never, apparently.

Wait wait wait.

What's the loophole that lets people switch off life-support machines?

I think most people would agree that he should be allowed to die. The legislation currently doesn't allow for it, however. A judge that rules to allow him to die (or be killed) would be setting a dangerous precedent that could potentially have impact on future trials, and the judge has unfortunately done the sensible thing in saying that he won't make that ruling until suitable legislation exists.

The legislation would need to take into account whether someone in that position can be considered in a suitable mental state to make that decision. And if not, how you would go about allowing someone else to make that decision for him. Would power of attourney be sufficient to allow you to kill someone? I wouldn't have thought so. It needs to be incredibly carefully thought out to prevent abuse.

Maybe it's not that complicated at all? Carry on all.. If you need me, I'll be in the Wongawatch thread.

There have been rare occurrences where people with LIS have recovered as well, so potentially you're letting someone die when they have a (small) chance of getting better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/au ... hard-marsh

Seeing as they are such staunch defenders of people's human rights, maybe Ecuador should take him in and let him die there.

'Will never regain consciousness' I think.

You shouldn't confuse my opinion that he should be allowed with the fact that he isn't allowed

So there's something in place already that allows someone else to make the decision to kill someone, then.

I will do reading. Or maybe not. I'm busy.

Or, rather, I should be busy.

Life support machines keep people in permanent vegetative states. If there's no brain activity then they're essentially dead anyway. With LIS the person is mentally all there, but cannot use their body in any way (as far as I understand it).

You can't be accused of murder if someone collapses and you don't perform CPR on them. However, injecting someone with potassium chloride (among other things) to stop the heart working is something else entirely.

Isn't there something about starting to perform CPR on them and then stopping?

I'm fairly sure that babies with no lung function can be "switched off".

No laws, but I suppose a civil suit could be filed. No one has yet to win, though.

It is the law in france that if you see someone dying, you have to intervene. I'm fairly sure it isn't here, but in a hospital environment it would be covered by a general duty of care.

If there's no direct risk to yourself, I believe.

If you see someone dying on the street here, you can film it and stick it on youtube with no real legal consequence.

Surely he can just be not fed or watered for a few days? Might not be the best way to go, but surely it's doable?

Malc

But then you are starving a man with perfectly normal brain activity who just happens to be physically disabled.

The pain and suffering of starvation is probably not what he had in mind when he asked to end his life swiftly and painlessly.

It's not ideal, but people hungerstrike for things all the time. A doctor could anaesthetise him or something so he doesn't suffer, and then no one feeds him.

Would that be legal? (what about without the doctor intervension?)

Malc

I would imagine probably not as people have assumed a duty of care or something. There's a case about a couple not feeding their daughter or something (the name of which I cn't recall). They were guilty.

@Malc. That's the whole point. If a doctor (or anyone for that matter) let's someone die, that's murder.

Dunno about that, you have a right to refuse treatment.

In this case, how could he do that?

Is he making his wishes known with telepathy?