Right-to-die man Tony Nicklinson dead

[Crabby Shrimper]

My position on this? I've known people who have been in the position of not having the ability to commit suicide themselves due to their condition.

My father's best man, and close friend of the family, died a few years back as fortunately he had MS. I say fortunately as he also had Huntingdons, which is hardly a fun way to go. Towards the end he couldn't do anything for himself.

My Gt Aunt had a strange wasting condition, which left her without the use of her arms, and seemed to be spreading. She died in her sleep, but again had she wanted to take another option, she'd have needed help.

My Father now has fairly terminal cancer. He's not too bad at the moment, but towards the end of the year he'll probably deteriorate and be in a fair bit of pain. Now, I'd put money on him hanging on as long as he can, but if he did wish to take the other option, then I'd want it to be his choice, not that of somebody who just doesn't agree with it.

 

[maninasuitcase]

We defer our rights to decide to the government for the good of society as a whole, and though a sad case, I don't think the law should be changed. Shipman's defence was that he was 'helping' patients to end their lives with dignity when he was infact murdering them.

Also we can't rely on the 'it's my life' arguement. Allowing everyone to do exactly what they want will lead to anarchy.

 

[Jam_Man]

We defer our rights to decide to the government for the good of society as a whole, and though a sad case, I don't think the law should be changed. Shipman's defence was that he was 'helping' patients to end their lives with dignity when he was infact murdering them.

Also we can't rely on the 'it's my life' arguement. Allowing everyone to do exactly what they want will lead to anarchy.

Again using Shipman isnt any better than using Adolf Hitler.

Both were killing other people, the issue is should you be able to choose for yourself.

The last point about anarchy again is daft, we arent saying people should be able to do what they like in any otherway, just if they wish to end their own life they should under certain circumstances, eg incurable illness where there is long term suffering. No one is suggesting giving people that right means they should then be allowed to drive petrol tankers through orphanages because "its their life".

 

[OldBlueLady]

My viewpoint on this has never changed, if you are in such a poor state of health physically (whether as a result of illness, accident or birth) that the thought of continuing to live is too much to bear, then you should have the right to end your suffering.

I also think that any person entering hospital should have the right to sign a "do not resuscitate" clause on the admissions paperwork.

Where there is a more grey area is in the case of relatives wanting to end the life of someone in, say, a vegetative state as this is the area which is more likely to cause conflict.

 

[southend4ever]

My thoughts are that you should have the right to end your own life. However, for me I worry about the times that the person is not mentally fit to make the decision. It makes me think of the death penalty when there could always be that bit of doubt that the person wasn't guilty.

If someone is unable to communicate, how can we be sure that they wish to end their life? At what stage should it be their immediate who makes the decision or should they never make the decision? It makes me compare to someone being in an induced coma - we will never know what the person wants but yet someone has to make a decision.

Could someone clarify how we knew Tony wanted to die? Could he speak? Was it sign language?

In my mind if an illness is terminal and the person wants to go then it should be there decision. Just like we as individuals make decisions what paths to go down our whole lifes.

This topic is getting quite deep and I don't think I have put my point across entirely well which has probably helped to show me that there are a lot of unasnwered questions on this subject and it is a great discussion topic because everyone will hold different views and have different concerns.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Tony communicated through a computer which he worked by eye movement.

 

[southend4ever]

how accurate is this technology thought to be?

 

[MK Shrimper]

how accurate is this technology thought to be?

Very. It's how Stephen Hawking communicates I believe. It's not as though anyone confused "I want to live" with "please kill me now".

 

[Jam_Man]

how accurate is this technology thought to be?

Well if he had said " I banana the elephant is full of. Fred up the chess" I would imagine not very.

As it made sense Id assume quite accurate :smile:

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

Isn't allowing assisted suicide / euthanasia in very specific circumstances about human empathy? about thinking of others besides ourselves? Tony Nicklinson may have died as he wished now but he had to take the route of least dignity, least human empathy and maximum suffering. How can that be right?

No-one is suggesting doctors go round euthanasing people as they see fit, or killing disabled people or children, we are talking about a very specific set of circumstances. People with terminal/degenerative illnesses, with no hope of recovery, who are unable to physically end their own lives but are able to express their wishes.

 

[shrimpled]

Firstly, Tony Nicklinson, rest in peace.

The matter of euthanasia needs to be properly debated in parliament and I am pleased that the court took this view.

This is a very highly emotive subject that needs to be discussed with great care. We all hold very different, equally valid viewpoints and in my opinion it will be a very long time before any changes in the law are made.