The tragic story of paralysed Tony Nicholson has been heartbreaking to watch from the court decision last week that doctors could not end his life to his death today after refusing food and medication and finally dying of pneumonia.
The judges who refused him the right to die were roundly condemned for their decision but as hard as it was to watch Mr Nicholson suffering, it really was the lesser of two evils.
I fully understand the argument that the courts were heartless to leave a fellow human in such needless suffering but this was an highly emotive case and bad laws are often made by emotional responses.
We have to consider what we would be left if we set a precedent that gave someone the right to choose the time they die or for that decision to be made by another person.
In Mr Nicholson's case it might seem uncontroversial but the precedent it could have set would have major repercussions. It would be misused that is without doubt and my concern is for people who feel they are becoming a burden on their family.
What about the elderly person who feels they have become a liability or those who come under pressure from their relatives especially if an inheritance is on the horizon. What about those who are struggling to look after a sick or disabled spouse who can claim they agreed to voluntary euthanasia afterwards or those who do not have the capacity to articulate their feelings but have the decision made for them by a well meaning relative or doctor.
Far too many avenues for abuse and chronic misjudgments so as much as it pains me to say it, the courts decision on Mr Nicholson was the right one to make. Horrible to see and my heart goes out to the Nicholson family who would undoubtedly disagree with everything i have said here but it was to stop a greater evil further down the road.
9 comments:
Most sensible, rational people condemn the U.S. because they torture people.
Yet in Britain, as in Australia, we force sick people to endure incredible torture as their body falls to the ravages of cancer, etc.
People with bowel cancer reach a stage where they vomit up feces. People with inoperable brain tumors endure terrible agony as the tumor grows inside their skulls.
I saw the case of Nicholson and his sobbing when he was told by other people that he couldn't end his life. What right have other people got to dictate to him what he can do and can't do with his life?
I would suggest you do some work in a terminal cancer ward for a few weeks, Lucy, then think again about euthanasia. You may well change your mind.
Do you really think that the State should have complete control over the date and procedures surrounding your death?
Legally allowing doctors to help folks kill themselves is a solution in want of a problem.
Physician-assisted suicide is all about having a good looking corpse. That's it. It isn't about the right to live or die, or the right to "die with dignity" (which apparently just means the right to die pathetically leaving a good looking corpse).
Do you want to die enough that you would be willing have an ugly corpse and potentially endure momentary pain?
-If the answer is no, you obviously don't really want to die.
-If the answer is yes, there is no reason why courts and doctors need to be involved (I'm assuming I don't need to provide examples of how this process would work, including for the physically disabled).
-"Most sensible, rational people condemn the U.S. because they torture people."
Given that the United States has nothing to do with this post, it would probably be better form if you put "death to America" or "It's all a vast zionist conspiracy" in a signature at the end.
Nog, most Americans fall into two categories: the brain-dead and those who are clearly deranged by extreme nationalism, extreme religion or both.
Your comment suggests there is a third category: the profoundly immature!
Lucy, the comment I left this morning took me seven times to post it because of the obscurity of the 'word'. Is there not a better way to weed out spam? Cheers.
The man's name was Tony Nicklinson, not Nicholson.
"We have to consider what we would be left if we set a precedent that gave someone the right to choose the time they die or for that decision to be made by another person"
Since the Suicide Act of 1961, suicide has not been illegal. So people already have the right to choose when they die. As for the decision being made by another person, where did you get that idea from? That's not what the Nicklinson case was about at all. Nobody was saying that the decision could be made by another person, ever.
Personally, I think suicide should only be recriminalised if it came with a mandatory death sentence (haha).
"What about the elderly person who feels they have become a liability or those who come under pressure from their relatives especially if an inheritance is on the horizon."
Such people have the right to commit suicide under the current law. Again, the question here is what to do if the person wants to perform an act which is legal, but which they are physically unable to do… Under the proposed law, the legal procedure that would have to be followed for a case like Nicklinson would do more to constrain the improper influence to which you are referring, than it would do when the elderly or disabled person is physically able to perform the act himself (i.e. in a normal case).
"What about those who are struggling to look after a sick or disabled spouse who can claim they agreed to voluntary euthanasia afterward"
They could not claim this under the proposed law. People who did this could be prosecuted for murder.
Again, this is not what the Nicklinson case was about.
"or those who do not have the capacity to articulate their feelings but have the decision made for them by a well meaning relative or doctor"
The proposed law could not terminate the life of someone unable to arcticulate a wish to die.
Again, this is not what the Nicklinson case was about.
David: Here's a thought – why don’t you do what most politically-interested boys & girls of your age do, and join Amnesty International? Maybe you could participate in their letter-writing campaigns? That's where you could write all of your penetrating thoughts (e.g. "war is bad... trees are pretty... Americans are indoctrinated... etc, etc"), rather than waste your time here... This could be very cathartic for you, and it would have the added benefit of us not having every thread diverted by your adolescent knee-jerk xenophobia.
David, i didn't say i liked it, it's the proverbial rock and a hard place but making the decision that benefits one person to the detriment of everyone else just doesn't make it right.
I don't know what i can do about the spam thing, it was just suddenly on the blog and if i can see how to take it off i will.
Hands up Cheezy, i got the name wrong and embarassingly stayed with it all the way through.
It was the precedent that allowing assisted suicide that i was warning of, not this case especially although it is obviously the spark. I don't see it as one of those things that are okay under certain conditions but not others. Whatever conditions you set, they will be stretched and we would end up with court cases of was-it-murder or was-it-assisted-suicide. It's too easy to have the edges blurred and what we have now, in my opinion, is the best worst option as horrendous as that is for the likes of Tony Nicklinson.
another good reason to have a gun...
lucy, i'm surprised by the side you came down on. then again, you typically advocate for the good of the whole over the good of the individual. you are quite an anomaly...
david g and i finally agree on something. i hate, and would shoot, the anti-spam thingy if it was shootable...
q
Maybe i am the only one who sees it as a slippery slope q, the common thinking not just here but elsewhere is that i am wrong on this whole thing but i'm surprised that people can't see where this would end up.
Dear Cheezy Blogflop,
I guess given your gold medal blogflop, you'd be the last person in the world to give me advice or Lucy.
Yes, Cheezy's Blog was doomed to failure from the get go given its pathetic name which showed not the slightest hint of creativeness or intelligence.
Your comments all too often match the mediocrity of your failed blog for the same reasons.
How about we do a deal? I'll ignore you and you can ignore me. We shouldn't be sparring on Lucy's blog. She deserves better!
P.S. If you continue to attack me, I'll bring out the big guns!
Cheers!
oh david... :-( sniff, sniff... i can't believe you would heartlessly target the fact that I used to keep a blog but then chose to stop... y'know, keeping a blog... sniff, sniff... how could you have known that was my achilles heel?... you beast... sniff, sniff... no more, please, no more... you win, lil' fulla, you win... i can't bear this pain... the unbearable shame... sniff sniff...
Righto, grown-up time:
Lucy, I think you're going too far when you say:
"Whatever conditions you set, they will be stretched and we would end up with court cases of was-it-murder or was-it-assisted-suicide."
It'll be murder if the correct procedures are not followed... these procedures will obviously include a complete investigation to confirm that death is a sincere wish on behalf of the person, and the decision was arrived at with no duress. On the other hand, if the correct procedures are adhered to, then it won't be murder.
I think you're over-playing any 'grey area' that you think might exist and erroneously citing a 'slippery slope' argument. Our legal system is full of these subtleties, in which the state says "You can do it to this extent, but not to that extent", or "You can do this, but only if you do that first"... Not everything (in fact, not much) is all or nothing in the law or in society generally.
The funniest 'slippery slope' argument I've read lately was on a debate about gay marriage, when some fundamentalist god-head piped up to say "What next? Will a man be allowed to marry his dog now? What's gonna stop that? We're at the top of a slippery slope to that!".
Post a Comment