www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680
Not sure what I think, but I feel desperately sorry for the chap in question - it could be any one of us.
Being locked-in with no prospect of any change ever is an awful awful thought. I can understand why he wanted out.
On the other hand I also believe the Court were right to say that it is a big decision and outside their power. As they say, if they were to change he law it could have widespread consequences - probably "unforeseen" ones at that.
Very difficult, in the same position I'd be wanting to check out, but it somehow doesn't feel right for that someone who has to carry out the deed.
|
Interesting piece by Joshua Rozenberg on BBC this morning. Any legal precedent will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Really should be down to Parliament to legislate but it's too controversial for them.
|
>> Interesting piece by Joshua Rozenberg on BBC this morning. Any legal precedent will have to
>> be decided by the Supreme Court.
>>
>> Really should be down to Parliament to legislate but it's too controversial for them.
>>
Well, why don't they do what they usually do when they want to cop out? i.e offer it to the people to choose via referendum.
And whilst voting on that issue we could save money and vote on a few other key issues at the same time....
|
Who's power is it to decide though? In absence of anyone shouldn't it be the person that is stuck in this condition to choose?
I think it is an awful decision.
There are places in Switzerland that will do it legally.
If someone writes in a living will that they want to be refused treatment or dispatched painlessly then that wish should be followed. It's massively different for grasping relatives to try and bin someone off compared to the person themselves deciding without any duress.
|
>> It's massively different for grasping relatives ....
Of course it. However its a nightmare trying to use the absolute position of law to differentiate between the two in all cases.
I just hope its not something I ever have to face from either side of the fence. Goodness knows what I'd do.
|
I feel sorry for him too and I wouldn't want to be living like that. Not that you could call that a life. Terrible. It would have been better if he'd died from the stroke but nobody would have hoped for that at the time.
I can't help feel this was never going to be ruled in his favour. And I am sure doctors do help people to die without at times and that a 'blind eye' is turned when extra pain killers are given to help with pain.... and ultimately kills the patient. But that can't be legalised easily.
|
I think there is precedent for the court to have chosen to allow assisted death in this case, under the "necessity" clause.
Used previously, in effect,. to kill half of a conjoined twin to save the other.
In this case the only treatment that will relieve unbearable suffering in the cessation of life.
Perhaps Nicklinson could be put into a medical coma for a couple of weeks, then revived and asked if he wished to continue - then put back into a coma until he expired.
Wouldn't cause me a sleepless night in this case.
|
>> Perhaps Nicklinson could be put into a medical coma for a couple of weeks, then revived
>> and asked if he wished to continue - then put back into a coma until he expired.
If I was in his situation and that was offered I would take it.
|
And if my child was in that situation and asked for it, I would offer it.
A pretty good test of right/wrong in my book.
|
If I wanted to die, I would refuse all food and drink - to make the point.
Force feeding a patient against their will IS against their Human Rights.
|
Unless, apparently, you are under the Mental Health Act a la Ian Brady.
Also starving/dehydrating to death isn't much fun when you are otherwise concious, totally immobile, and capable of feeling all sensations.
I still reckon "putting someone in a coma to relieve their suffering" would avoid being prosecuted - that they died eventually was a secondary effect.
|
|
i would rather shuffle myself off beachy head rather than go to the topping sheds in some industrial estate in europe
|
>> I still reckon "putting someone in a coma to relieve their suffering" would avoid being
>. prosecuted - that they died eventually was a secondary effect.
What I was alluding to. People die in hospitals from treatments that are trying to help them. Doctors get away with it as it's in some patients' best interest and is the right thing. It cannot be legalised and cannot be admitted to. But it happens.
|
He has been excisting this way for seven years.His family must go through hell everyday looking at his face and seeing the hurt.We are a starnge species if we did this to a dog or a cat we be up for cruelty.He has to starve himself or the only way for him to be taken to Switzerland.
|
Dutchie
If he was a pet he'd be put down humanely. He's human so suffers. That's wrong.
My view is different to some because I once instantaneously realised I might be about to die and was glad later of course (when conscious) I hadn't of course. But has put life in perspective ever since. But that feeling has never gone away. We were lucky.
|
|
I had a thought about this this morning.Maybe Toney would be better in full time care.His wife looked drained and exhausted.His daughter was on BBC2 a bright girl who remembered her dad as a lively and full on person.There was also a chap who suffered the same as Toney and he would visited him for support.
|
Or someone has helped him and will face the consequences now.
RIP.
|
Stopped eating after last week's disappointment, developed a lung infection and refused active treatment.
Nowt suspicious there.
Have seen similar in the very old and infirm where they "turn to face the wall" and simply fade away.
I think the Law as it stands, and the BMA are wrong on this one, but I can see why the courts defer such an important issue to parliament, the makers of Law.
|
Yes I'd heard he'd got pneumonia and assume anyone with a condition where they are sedentary are at risk. The law should be changed but parliament would need to debate and vote on that.
So instead of being able to die peacefully he stopped eating and eventually died of pneumonia. So not a peaceful end for him. I find that very sad.
|
Possibly, but once he has pneumonia and is refusing antibiotics there's nothing stopping the administration of drugs to relieve any suffering, including sedatives/morphine/stuff to dry chest secretions.
May well have been at peace towards the very end.
|
>>So instead of being able to die peacefully he stopped eating and eventually died of pneumonia. So not a peaceful end for him. I find that very sad.
>>
>>
I always understood that pneumonia was "the old peoples friend" as it was a gentlly way of drifting off this mortal coil.
I now read :-
"Pneumonia is called the old man's friend because, left untreated, the sufferer often lapses into a state of reduced consciousness, slipping peacefully away in their sleep, giving a dignified end to a period of often considerable suffering. "
|
Indeed - in TN's case, however, his ability to show distress was possibly limited to a subtle grimace or eye movement.
If he was my dad/brother I'd be making sure of his comfort at the end.
|
Tony Nicklinson loses High Court right-to-die case - Bromptonaut
