Mercy killings

[J.Kickstones]

Mother who killed brain-damaged son loses murder appeal.

Tom suffered severe head injuries when he fell out of a moving ambulance in July 2007.

Examining the concept of mercy killing in the ruling, he (Lord Judge) said:

“We must underline that the law of murder does not distinguish between murder committed for malevolent reasons and murder motivated by familial loveâ€

Should the law be changed?

[Srg]

No. It is inviting far too much controversy.

I think the term for it is euthanasia.

[Hartley Hare]

Cases like this often give rise to emotive comment. However, a change in the law would probably only introduce grey areas and make it harder to enforce.

Whilst I have sympathy for the family involved, and wouldn't wish the situation on anyone, I wouldn't support a change in the law.

[J.Kickstones]

I supose the best route would be to go to a country where the law is different.

For example, people can go to place called Dignitas in Switzerland

It's a assisted dying group that helps those with terminal illness and severe physical and mental illnesses to die assisted by qualified doctors and nurses.

If they have sound judgment and submit to an in-depth medical report prepared by a psychiatrist that establishes the patient's condition as fulfilling the specifications of the Federal Court of Switzerland.

link

[Perky1106]

I think it's wrong.

If you're brain-damaged how can you decide whether or not you want euthanasia? It all seems wrong to me.

[Leeds Ram]

the only way i would support a chnage in the law is if there was a procedure when the patient wanted to die and stated so, I have sympathies with people who commit mercy killings but it is still against the law. I believe it should be legal given a proper procedure and examination by a doctor and judge, also a written and oral testimony of when and what circumstance the patient wanted to die.

[Hartley Hare]

We have wills* now where which have to be countersigned, etc, and they still end up being contested after death as people squabble to maximise personal gain. Whatever checks and balances are put in place you can bet that the same thing would happen with living wills, and people will end up being killed without their consent and, conversely, people who want to die will be prevented from doing so. And there's no way I'd want a doctor to legally have the right to kill me, or be able to authorise someone else to kill me - Harold Shipman, anyone? Doctors are just as fallible as anyone else, as are judges. I don't see that it would be beneficial to society to place that kind of responsibility on anyone, whatever their training or qualifications.

(* i.e. a will to divide the estate of a deceased)

[Leeds Ram]

well Shipman was an exceptional case and actually i wouldn't authourise gp's to be allowed to commit this act. If the person was alive and of sound mind it wouldn't be contestable whatsoever in court, people contest wills after death because they weren't of sound mind and that was abused. This wouldn't happen, it would need a judge to decide, with a personal written and oral testimony with a uncontestable will already in place and they would die at a special clinic adminsitered not by a g.p but by a surgeon with an authorisation certificate.

[Hartley Hare]

You're proposing to authorising 1 person to kill another. It will always be open to abuse. Whether it's a GP, a surgeon, a plumber, or a joiner, it doesn't matter. People are corruptable, systems are circumventable, tragedy will ocurr. Power corruptsm, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is there any more absolute power than the power of life or death over another human being?

Wills aren't contested because the deceased was not of sound mind. They are contested because someone wishes to demonstrate that they were not of sound mind in order to gain some (usually financial) advantage. When the stakes are high enough and people are desparate enough, you'd be surprised what people will do.

P.S. Tell the families of Shipman's victims that he was an exception, or an anomoly. It won't bring them any comfort at all. You're surely not suggesting that lessons not be learned from Shipman just because he was an exception, your honour?

[Leeds Ram]

You're proposing to authorising 1 person to kill another. It will always be open to abuse. Whether it's a GP, a surgeon, a plumber, or a joiner, it doesn't matter. People are corruptable, systems are circumventable, tragedy will ocurr. Power corruptsm, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is there any more absolute power than the power of life or death over another human being?

Wills aren't contested because the deceased was not of sound mind. They are contested because someone wishes to demonstrate that they were not of sound mind in order to gain some (usually financial) advantage. When the stakes are high enough and people are desparate enough, you'd be surprised what people will do.

P.S. Tell the families of Shipman's victims that he was an exception, or an anomoly. It won't bring them any comfort at all. You're surely not suggesting that lessons not be learned from Shipman just because he was an exception, your honour?

Shipmann has nothing to do with this whatsoever, he was a man who killed over two hundred people with morphine for the hell of it. Yes people are corruptable it doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing does it? if we took your approach nothing would get done, hospitals wouldn't be open and benefits would stop. The thing is no-one could wish to demonstrate if somone wasn't of sound mind if they are in court providing a wriiten and oral statement that conclusivly proves they are sound of mind and that the will is clearly laid out. Shipmann didn't mercy kill and what lessons are to be learned, don't give a doctor morphine? If it was done soon enough when somone had the capacity and the will ect before a court no harm would be done in my opinion and we would be doing a great service to the thousands in agony who simply can't die.

[Alex W]

I've always said that if I get to the point where I can't do anything anymore through an accident and can't control my body, need 24 hour care etc, i'd like to die.

I am sorry for all involved in this case, but they really should have just gone to Switzerland and sorted it all there.

[lyndsey]

totally agree Alex, i wouldnt want to live and be a full time burden on my family... what quality of life would you have and that of your families.

i would be for assisted suicide for long term degenerative conditions such as motor neurone disease for example but only of the person is of sound mind and still have the ability to do it themselves.

[Hartley Hare]

There's no law against suicide in the UK. It's a sad way to go, but not illegal. Assisted suicide is still murder at the moment.

Lyndsey, I'm not sure how a suicide can be assisted it the person still has the ability to do it themselves? Surely, if they have the ability to do it themselves but someone does it for them.... that's got to be dodgy ground?

[Hartley Hare]

Shipmann has nothing to do with this whatsoever, he was a man who killed over two hundred people with morphine for the hell of it. Yes people are corruptable it doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing does it?

YoungRam, we should always seek to do the right thing, as individuals and as a society, but who is to say what is the right thing....? And right for whom? I thought you were studying philosophy.....?

if we took your approach nothing would get done, hospitals wouldn't be open and benefits would stop.

Excuse me, but please tell me where I've suggested that hospitals be closed and benefits be stopped? I think you're over-reacting, sir. Tell me how you arrive at that conclusion, please.

The thing is no-one could wish to demonstrate if somone wasn't of sound mind if they are in court providing a wriiten and oral statement that conclusivly proves they are sound of mind and that the will is clearly laid out.

Ok, so what I think you're saying is that a person must make a "living will" (we'll call it that for arguments sake), get it verified in writing, present it to a court in person to testify to its authenticity and wait for an unspecified period of time until a judgement is handed down, all this whilst in constant agony and in dire need to realease by death? It could be argued that the degree of pain and agony suffered by the petitioner has had a material effect on his/her state of mind, such that they are no longer able to make a rational decision regarding the termination or continuance of their own life.

The reason that capital punishment was abolished in the UK was because once the act was carried out it could not be reversed. Same applies to your proposal. If your court rules that someone can be lawfully killed based on the evidence presented to it, and then new evidence comes to light after the death - what are you going to do then? You can't unkill someone. You're asking 1 person, or a group of people, to make a judgement based on presented evidence. While the circumstances are different to a capital punishement trial, the process of judgement is the same and therefore subject to the same margin of error.

Shipmann didn't mercy kill and what lessons are to be learned, don't give a doctor morphine? If it was done soon enough when somone had the capacity and the will ect before a court no harm would be done in my opinion and we would be doing a great service to the thousands in agony who simply can't die.

You want to kill people quickly then, before they have time to think about it? Get the job done as long as all the paperwork is in order? We're talking about killing people, not getting the MOT done on your car.

I've not suggested that Shipman engaged in mercy killings, far from it. He had a position of power and he abused it. Happens all around the world every day, on some level. We'll never stop it. If we did, you'd be out of a job, there'd be no more criminal acts commited and no need for judges and barristers.

When you refer to people who "simply can't die", you mean people who you believe would be better off dead? You want to kill people who have lost hope - that's what you're really saying, isn't it? Where's the compassion in that?

Right now, if one person by a deliberate act takes the life of another person then he/she will be charged with murder. Simple, no grey area. Who says that that has to change? And for what reason? And how does it benefit society? What are the pros and the cons (you seem to only have considered what you see to be the benefits - walk a mile in someone elses shoes). Why does the current law have to change? Where is the public clamour? Do we alone stand in defiance againt the tide of change that has already swept the globe? Err, no. Rather than leave murder as murder, you would rather clog up the courts with additional administration and put money in the pockets of solicitors and barristers and...... Oh, hang on a minute, aren't you planning on being a barrister when you're older.....? Ah, so now I see your starting point.....

[lyndsey]

someone mentioned dignitas earlier in the thread, they assist,

they prepare a fatal dose of morphine based liquid to drink but the person must be able to drink it without any assistance what so ever, all of it is filmed on camera and when the person has died the authorities are called and the video is played.

[Hartley Hare]

Ok Lyndsey, thanks. I guess that to my mind, if you're still able to do it yourself then you don't need to fly to Switzerland, you can throw yourself under a train, drown yourself, gas yourself, etc - suicide in a perhaps more traditional sense. That's why the Dignitas solution is illegal here - basically they're giving you a loaded gun and telling you how to use it. But I understand what you mean.

[lyndsey]

There was a programme on ITV i think it was about a year ago, it followed a man with MN disease and his decision to travel to Switzerland and end his life, he had limited movement couldn't walk, lost all control of his body functions but with MN the brain is the last to be affected so he was aware of everything.

as he didnt want to continue with his life (well existance as he had next to no quality of life) he was unable to end it 100% by himself and as he did not want his wife to be prosecuted then going to dignitas was his only option.

something like this will always cause different views in everyone some agree some strongly disagree but personally i have watched my grandfather die of motor neurone and how it took him and the effect on everyone in the family, i said back then that if i ever had a debilitating illness i would rather choose how and when i went rather than put my family through that.

[Hartley Hare]

Yep, I know the program you mean. Anyone who's nursed a relative through a terminal illness could empathise with it.

Any proposal to legalise killing people will always be emotive and stir strong opinions. Better that than apathy, I say.

[Duracell]

You really can't make this stuff legal. I'll tell you why.

70% of people who leave for the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland never finish the journey - they turn around, and go back home.

The countryside in Switzerland is so stunning that people start seeing things in a different way; they realise what is to be alive, how fantastic it is, and some even say how fortunate they are to experience it.

If 70% of people who want to commit suicide are persuaded not to do so simply by looking at some pretty mountains, then you can not make euthanasia legal in this country. Assuming that those on their way to any suicide clinic do not experience anything similar, then 70% of assisted suicides will be taken out on those who still have a will to carry on living somewhere within them.

[uttoxram75]

As a rule of thumb, I would look at the official religious and governmental view on assisted suicide....then go for the complete opposite.

This would apply just as well to most other subjects,