Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Mother jailed for nine years for euthanising son

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/frances-inglis-tom-heroin-murder

I think it was clear from a legal standpoint what the outcome would be, but I think the sentence and the attitude of the judge in the case seems to be vastly out of step with public interest.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting view.

    Is it, in any way, in the public interest for people to murder the sick?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is it in anyone's interest for him to starve to death with no prospect of recovery or recourse to choice? Especially given that those who knew him best apparently support the mother's actions?

    I'm not sure I'd make this particular action legal - what I am saying is that 1) The system at present seems to force these horrible choices upon people 2) That the sentence in relation to the circumstances seems harsh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure I'd make this particular action legal - what I am saying is that 1) The system at present seems to force these horrible choices upon people 2) That the sentence in relation to the circumstances seems harsh.

    The system doesn't force these choice upon people, their compassion does. Problem is that we cannot condone the muder of sick people because it might "reduce their suffering". That is a very slippery slope.

    As for the sentence, it was premeditated murder IMHO. I'd say it was light.

    ETA: That isn't to say that I don't understand the reasoning, or that I cannot sympathise with the views. But either it's wrong to kill someone or it isn't and where do you draw the line? Terminal illness? Age?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So because we can't reconcile this with an administrative system, people must be left to die in potentially agonising situations, trapped in a body they cannot control.
    But either it's wrong to kill someone or it isn't and where do you draw the line?

    Certainly not there because that statement gives no regard for circumstances.
    As for the sentence, it was premeditated murder IMHO. I'd say it was light.

    And you'll sleep lighter knowing that a traumatised mother who is supported by her family is no longer at large to threaten us? I'm not convinced.
    The system doesn't force these choice upon people, their compassion does. Problem is that we cannot condone the muder of sick people because it might "reduce their suffering". That is a very slippery slope.

    That's inherently contradictory - the 'system doesn't force' then followed by 'we cannot condone'. So you're arguing that we must impose systems of governance to legislate what is right, but by doing so we aren't influencing people in any way?

    It clearly does force the choice between 'criminal' and 'non-criminal' acts by making an act of compassion a criminal offence. It also smacks of 'we don't like this so we'd better do something to make ourselves feel better' - rather than concern for the son in this case.

    We can let him starve, because our system of rules tells us that is morally permissible. It's madness.

    Leaving her son in that situation would have been acting by omission, especially from her point of view.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You talk about an "act of compassion" as if it justifies murder. Who determined that the victim in this case wanted to die?

    She did.

    It would be "compassionate" to kill every terminally ill person. Should we do it?

    What about those heading down the road of dementia?

    Where do you draw the line of criminality? You refer to an "administartive system", I presume that you mean the laws of the land?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I presume that you mean the laws of the land?

    Yes, a system for administering justice, set up by people, subject to change. Just because something is written doesn't make it automatically right.
    You talk about an "act of compassion" as if it justifies murder. Who determined that the victim in this case wanted to die?

    You talk about this death like all 'murders' are the same.

    it was a profoundly compassionate act (words of the family) and massively altruistic given the mother knew that she would most likely be prosecuted.
    She did.

    In this case the mother; which is what would happen in any case once the person was found not to be mentally capable of making their own decisions - it's just that presently the law does not allow her to make the decision she and the family felt was best for their son/relative.

    The case is clearly not comparable with hot blooded murder.
    It would be "compassionate" to kill every terminally ill person. Should we do it?

    What about those heading down the road of dementia?

    Well clearly not - and not least because those situations aren't comparable - someone 'heading down the road of dementia' is very different from someone who is unable to control his body, communicate, and faces the prospect of starving to death.

    At the present time people who are terminally ill aren't allowed to make future choices about their own bodies because the state tells them they can't. Acting by omission, they are being compelled to suffer unto an end that is acceptable to the system.

    I think that you are entirely right to be cautious of this, and I don't have the answer to the whole issue, obviously. But this is one of the more clear cut cases, certainly more so that the examples you have given.

    I don't think that satisfying an administrative system is as important as doing what you think your loved ones would want in this situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    May not be as simple as pure mercy killing of a terminally ill person however
    On Monday the consultant surgeon who looked after Mr Inglis at Queen's Hospital, Romford, Essex, told the jury that he had shown "little in the way of what seemed irrecoverable brain injuries".

    "The early signs were about as good as we could have had at that stage," said the surgeon, Ragu Vindlacheruvu.

    The doctor said in September 2007, on the day Ms Inglis had first allegedly tried to kill her son, he had seen him and was "pleased" with how he seemed.

    The case was adjourned until Thursday after Ms Inglis broke down in tears while giving her evidence.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8457769.stm
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    This is clearer case in my mind.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6995366.ece

    The daughters quality of life for 17 years was horrendous. I seriously hope the mother's found innocent on all charges.

    If someone you loved was living with such a poor quality of life asked you to help them die, would you not do it? I would, because I'd hope somebody would do it for me.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    May not be as simple as pure mercy killing of a terminally ill person however

    Mmm... actually I think you might be right here, especially the only other article with any further significant detail that I can find is here;

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6937929/Mother-injected-brain-damaged-son-with-fatal-dose-of-heroin-to-end-misery.html

    Which does change the picture quite drastically: specifically in relation to the following (from the article above)


    [*]She first mentioned her plan to kill him just ten days after the accident, a neighbour claimed, then allegedly gave him heroin in September in a bid to end his life.

    [*]He was on a life support machine and required constant care but, following surgery to relieve pressure inside his skull, showed signs of improvement.

    [*] "She told the doctors that what they were doing was not in his best interests and she did not trust the medical team looking after him.

    [*]Over the following months Thomas' condition improved so that he could open his eyes and move his limbs.


    Hmmm...this doesn't change my view of the issue, but certainly does of this case - if the Telegraph reporting is true (can't see any reason why not) they've included some pretty significant facts omitted elsewhere.

    In light of this I'm inclined to agree with MoK & Flash - this probably warranted the conviction.

    So very sad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In light of this I'm inclined to agree with MoK & Flash - this probably warranted the conviction.

    So very sad.

    I think that this makes my point for me. It's a slippery slope and a fine line between compassion and murder. Personally I think society has it correct because it marks something like this out. Without the law that's in place then this would have been seen as you did at first - a mercy killing.

    In general though I don't believe in mercy killing as a concept. Certainly not in law.

    We already have our elderly, infirm and sick feeling like they are a "burden" on their family of health services. If a law like this was in place then events like to one described would become more commonplace - possibly even the norm. personally I don't want to live in that kind of society. One which doesn't value the sanctity of life.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    MoK wrote: »
    I think that this makes my point for me.

    I don't think it does. I think Martins spot on about the issue of euthanasia, just that this case isn't the best to highlight his point as there are some serious questions to be asked of the mother mental health and her motives for doing what she did.

    This case.. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6995366.ece which featured in the metro the other day is far more clear cut to me. A girl having lived with a terrible quality of life for 17 years wished to end her life. She asked her mother to help so the mother injected her with an overdose of morphine.

    Obviously every mercy killing has to investigated, but if the evidence is that the victim requested it in good mental health because they're quality of life is so bad, I see no reason why anybody should be convicted.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not an easy issue and whilst this case isn't as clear cut, I'm not sure where I stand.

    I disagree with a member of the family unilaterally making that choice, but do wonder whether there should be something where a judge can make that choice after weighing the medical evidence, feelings of the families, views of doctors (and certainly, if possible, the view of the person eg in cases of terminal cancer). But at the same time I do have some sympathy for the slippery slope argument and that it is not the state's place to sanction what, could be argued, is judicial murder.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    I disagree with a member of the family unilaterally making that choice

    If the choice is made by the person suffering, and made in good mental health then I see no reason why the opinions of other familly members should carry much weight.

    If you want to die because you're quality of life is awful and show no signs of improoving, why should you not be able to do that? I don't see any reason why we cant have a system that will allow for assisted suicide.

    We do it for animals we love and it's called compassion, we do it for people we love and we risk a sentance for murder. Seems barmy to me.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I worry that were euthanasia legal, people who thought they were a burden might feel pressured to suggest it or go along with it.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    katralla wrote: »
    I worry that were euthanasia legal, people who thought they were a burden might feel pressured to suggest it or go along with it.

    :yes:

    I agree there a plenty of decent arguments against assisted suicide an euthansaia.

    It's two points that make my mind up though.

    1. If somone I loved was in terrible pain with no hope of improvement, and they asked me to assist in they're suicide I would.

    2. If I were in such situation where I was in constant pain, with somebody having to wipe my backside every day I want someboyd to help me. I'd certainly like to have the choice to be able to end my own life. Surely having the right to die when you want is one of the most basic.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have been involved with a childrens hospice over the years.
    I think this woman deserves nothing but compassion and help.
    She will be treated like a princess by the majority of staff and inmates and hopefully someone will find a way of getting her out of there ASAP.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that this makes my point for me.

    Only in this case - I don't think the law has the right to keep someone on this plain to suffer. Lack of detail in reporting does not equal lack of detail in the case as it actually is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd much prefer that a system of sanctioned euthanasia were in place, rather than the de facto turning a blind-eye - In both cases the subject is open to pressures, but it's easier to build in safeguards if it's legal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    But either it's wrong to kill someone or it isn't and where do you draw the line? Terminal illness? Age?

    That's just not true at all. That's far, far too simplistic a view. Of course it's not always wrong to kill someone. As soon as you can think of a single scenario where killing someone is the right thing to do, all things considered, then your principle that it's wrong to kill goes out of the window, as we have to admit that circumstances and context matter. And then it seems to me that cases of so called mercy killing are prime cases where we ought to consider whether the injunction not to kill is correct or not.

    I don't know what I think about this particular case, because its status as a mercy killing is in question anyway. I think it's interesting that the rest of her family, her other son, the dead son's girlfriend, all support her completely and are devastated by the conviction.

    But this case aside, our current legislation is completely crazy and inhumane. The idea that there is a whole system of legal rights protecting my ability to live my life as I choose and ensuring me respect and dignity throughout that life, but then I am prevented from dying in a manner of my choosing - that is ludicrous, and ought to be changed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    That's just not true at all. That's far, far too simplistic a view. Of course it's not always wrong to kill someone. As soon as you can think of a single scenario where killing someone is the right thing to do, all things considered, then your principle that it's wrong to kill goes out of the window, as we have to admit that circumstances and context matter. And then it seems to me that cases of so called mercy killing are prime cases where we ought to consider whether the injunction not to kill is correct or not.

    I don't know what I think about this particular case, because its status as a mercy killing is in question anyway. I think it's interesting that the rest of her family, her other son, the dead son's girlfriend, all support her completely and are devastated by the conviction.

    But this case aside, our current legislation is completely crazy and inhumane. The idea that there is a whole system of legal rights protecting my ability to live my life as I choose and ensuring me respect and dignity throughout that life, but then I am prevented from dying in a manner of my choosing - that is ludicrous, and ought to be changed.

    My point is that we start with the principle that killing is wrong. We then make exceptions - self defence, war for example. To date we have been happy with that - hell in the UK we have no dealth penalty for henious crimes.

    Now we are talking about premeditated killing. Sure you can call it "assisted suicide" if you like, but in the cases in this thread it doesn't appear that suicide was an option. In both cases someone else has made the decision that a life should be deliberately ended. There doesn't appear to be any definition of the boundaries involved - who should be allowed to do the killing, one what grounds etc.

    How long before they slip, like is already being considered? How long before caring for people becomes euthanasia in it's truest sense? How long before the economic arguments are used? How long before pressure is put on our elderly, infirm our most vulnerable members of the population to "choose" death over becoming a "burden"?

    This country disgusts me at times. Or rather western culture does.

    We should be look at how we make people's lives as comfortable as possible before the natural course takes it's full effect. We should be investing in excellent palliative services, in nursing care and in support for carers.

    Instead we seem to want to invest in killing people.

    We are all going to die sometime. In between now and then I'd like to think that my fellow countryment were more concerned about looking after me than in bumping me off quicker.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah some really good points there MoK.

    It's easy when thinking about this to slide into talk of assisted suicide, when of course it's not that at all. Assisted suicide means the person wants to die but isn't able to do it themselves; mercy killing is making the decision for them that they are better off dead.

    The first one of those I think should be legalised in certain circumstances, but it's quite clear the second one shouldn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think it's that clear, between assisted suicides and mercy killings.

    If I were beyond any quality of life and couldn't decide for myself that I wanted to die, I'd want someone to kill me out of mercy. I think women should be able to kill babies they give birth to out of mercy. And, I think people should be able to assist in suicides. It's only because I can't think of a practical way for these to be allowed without potential for things that I wouldn't want to happen that I don't think it's a good idea. Not because I don't agree with the principle.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    MoK wrote: »
    My point is that we start with the principle that killing is wrong. We then make exceptions - self defence, war for example.

    Why can we not make an exception for people that want to die?
    MoK wrote: »
    Now we are talking about premeditated killing. Sure you can call it "assisted suicide" if you like, but in the cases in this thread it doesn't appear that suicide was an option.

    In the case that I high lighted (the ME sufferer) suicide was not an option because she was physically unable to do it, thats why it's called assisted suicide. She wanted to die and her mother aided her.
    MoK wrote: »
    In both cases someone else has made the decision that a life should be deliberately ended. There doesn't appear to be any definition of the boundaries involved - who should be allowed to do the killing, one what grounds etc.

    Well in the case of the ME sufferer the victim had tried and failed herself and that's when her mother decided to aid her. Seems clear to me that the decision to die was made by the daughter herself. And there's no boundaries because there' no law to define them.

    MoK wrote: »
    How long before they slip, like is already being considered? How long before caring for people becomes euthanasia in it's truest sense? How long before the economic arguments are used? How long before pressure is put on our elderly, infirm our most vulnerable members of the population to "choose" death over becoming a "burden"?

    It doesn't have to lead to any of that. I don't see how the law would make much difference to be honest. If people want to

    MoK wrote: »
    We should be look at how we make people's lives as comfortable as possible before the natural course takes it's full effect. We should be investing in excellent palliative services, in nursing care and in support for carers.

    In both cases had it not been for medical science the victims would have probably died from natural causes. Instead of investing in keeping people against their wishes suffering longer, we should be respecting there wishes and their right to die in the way they choose. It's the last thing they have any control over and you want to deprive them of that?
    MoK wrote: »
    We are all going to die sometime. In between now and then I'd like to think that my fellow countryment were more concerned about looking after me than in bumping me off quicker.

    This is where I think you miss the point. Obviously you have a hard time envisaging a situation where you would want to die. Im not arguing that we shoudl be killing off the sick just that we should be respecting peoples choices.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Why can we not make an exception for people that want to die?

    We already do. It's called suicide and you cannot prosecute a dead person. Helping someone kill themselves is still illegal and should remain so IMHO.

    In 99% of cases (when we are talking about "assisted suicide") you know what is coming, so why wait until if you need assistance? Why not do it earlier?

    In the case that I high lighted (the ME sufferer) suicide was not an option because she was physically unable to do it, thats why it's called assisted suicide. She wanted to die and her mother aided her.

    Difficult one. I don't know the full details of the case, but unless you are paralysed then there are ways.
    It doesn't have to lead to any of that.

    Really? The current law outlaws any such action, in any cases. Yet here we are discussion relaxing those rules. Why wouldn't that happen again?
    Instead of investing in keeping people against their wishes suffering longer, we should be respecting there wishes and their right to die in the way they choose. It's the last thing they have any control over and you want to deprive them of that?

    We don't deny them taht wish. We deny the right for anyone else to make the final decision for them or to do it for them. It removes the opporunity for killers to use the "assisted" argument as a defence. Remember Shipman thought that he was helping people avoid suffering.
    This is where I think you miss the point. Obviously you have a hard time envisaging a situation where you would want to die. Im not arguing that we shoudl be killing off the sick just that we should be respecting peoples choices.

    Bad assumption ;)

    I can imagine a situation where I would rather die - but then that's partly because I know that investment in caring is something we will not address when a law like this is in place. Whilst that may not be the intention it's an unfortunate consequence. I am also saying is that a law like the one your are proposing exposes a larger majority to abuse of that law - the case which started this thread is an example of that.

    If you want to die, you can. If you want help, you can have that too but not within the protection of the law because we currently - as we should - value life.

    I've spent my career watching people with serious disability and horrendous terminal illnesses fight for every last breath. That has taught me more about the importance of doing everything we can to support them rather than making earlier death something which they could be pressured into.

    It's amazing how many people with those conditions seem to focus more on their families needs than their own. They have enough to be dealing with in fighting their illness without feeling like they should end their life because it would be easier on everyone involved.

    We are moving to a phase of humanity where people are living longer, where dementia is going to become much more prevalent, where heart and lung diseases will mean that more people need more care.

    At the same time we have a culture, in the UK, where we expect "someone else" to look after our kin. Where elderly, infirm, people are "dumped" in A&E because people "cannot cope" anymore.

    Do you really think that this type of law will not be abused? Especially where the person involved has difficulty in communicating?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    MoK wrote: »
    We already do. It's called suicide

    Suicide for many people is not physically possible, unless you talking about people refusing food and water and lets face it starvation carries with it it's own share of suffering. Certainly when you compare it to a morphine overdose.
    MoK wrote: »
    In 99% of cases (when we are talking about "assisted suicide") you know what is coming, so why wait until if you need assistance? Why not do it earlier?

    I think thats rather obvious. People don't want to top them selves whislt the quality of life is at least bearable. And many people suffer accidents where they havn't forseen their suffering. After 17 of suffering from sever ME this girl wanted her life to end. Rathr than starving herself to death and causeing herself more pain she wanted to choose to die quickly and with a fair bit more dignity.
    MoK wrote: »
    Difficult one. I don't know the full details of the case, but unless you are paralysed then there are ways.

    And if you are paralysed?

    MoK wrote: »
    Really? The current law outlaws any such action, in any cases. Yet here we are discussion relaxing those rules. Why wouldn't that happen again?

    Because you can assign bounderies, and put harsh checks in place with courts to decide on cases which lie on the edge of those bounderies - it happens in many areas of law. The boundry between helping somebody end their life because they are in severe pain or because they're just old is quite clear.

    If we decriminalised cannabis, it doesn't automatically lead to the decriminalisation of all drugs?

    MoK wrote: »
    We don't deny them taht wish.

    Same result. The person who suffers is the same.
    MoK wrote: »
    It removes the opporunity for killers to use the "assisted" argument as a defence. Remember Shipman thought that he was helping people avoid suffering.

    Shipman was stealing money of his victims. I hardly see Shipman, a serial killer, as good argument. And nobody here is arguing for doctors to be able to go around bumbing people off that they feel are suffering without any checks or process.
    MoK wrote: »
    I can imagine a situation where I would rather die - but then that's partly because I know that investment in caring is something we will not address when a law like this is in place.

    You can get the best care in the world and there will still be people with such a shit quality of life that they will want to end it.
    MoK wrote: »
    Whilst that may not be the intention it's an unfortunate consequence. I am also saying is that a law like the one your are proposing exposes a larger majority to abuse of that law - the case which started this thread is an example of that.

    It's an example of the fact that things like this will happen despite the law, not because of it.
    MoK wrote: »
    If you want to die, you can. If you want help, you can have that too but not within the protection of the law because we currently - as we should - value life.

    Not always you can't, not with dignity. And keeping somebody alive just for the sake of 'valuing life' despite misery pain and suffering is rather a a contradiction don't you think.
    MoK wrote: »
    I've spent my career watching people with serious disability and horrendous terminal illnesses fight for every last breath. That has taught me more about the importance of doing everything we can to support them rather than making earlier death something which they could be pressured into.

    Im sure many people here have experienced death and suffering at a very personal level. I saw my mum suffer with terminal cancer. Im all for teaching the importance of caring for people who a suffering a great deal with no hope of improvement. Care and assisted suicide are not mutually exclusive.
    MoK wrote: »
    It's amazing how many people with those conditions seem to focus more on their families needs than their own. They have enough to be dealing with in fighting their illness without feeling like they should end their life because it would be easier on everyone involved.

    But with that you totally write off those that genuinely want to die because their existance and quality of life is horrendous. Some of these people have decades to live in such a state.
    MoK wrote: »
    Do you really think that this type of law will not be abused? Especially where the person involved has difficulty in communicating?

    You think it's impossible to implent such a law without it being abused? I don't andI would only support action where the person suffering is of good mental health adn able to clearly state their wish to die.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    In 99% of cases (when we are talking about "assisted suicide") you know what is coming, so why wait until if you need assistance? Why not do it earlier?


    Well for the obvious reason that you aren't ready to die yet, and are being forced to end your life sooner than necessary, just to be assured a dignified death.

    That's a big deal, since with a lot of degenerative diseases you won't know the prognosis, and may end losing years of a good quality life to avoid suffering a lot at death, which is unnecessary when you could easily make it known that once you are past a certain point, you'd like help to die.

    Obviously there are practical problems surrounding implementation of such a law and stringent safeguards would be needed to prevent abuse. But those practical problems don't entail that we ought to deny everyone the right to end their life in a manner of their choosing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well for the obvious reason that you aren't ready to die yet, and are being forced to end your life sooner than necessary, just to be assured a dignified death.

    That's a big deal, since with a lot of degenerative diseases you won't know the prognosis, and may end losing years of a good quality life to avoid suffering a lot at death, which is unnecessary when you could easily make it known that once you are past a certain point, you'd like help to die.

    Obviously there are practical problems surrounding implementation of such a law and stringent safeguards would be needed to prevent abuse. But those practical problems don't entail that we ought to deny everyone the right to end their life in a manner of their choosing.

    :yes: And I think that you'd want that security in order to hold onto every single second you have left, in the only life you'll ever have...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :yes: And I think that you'd want that security in order to hold onto every single second you have left, in the only life you'll ever have...

    Are you sure it's the only life you will ever have?
    Go visit a childrens hospice sometime.
    A few years ago I had the pleasure of sitting with an eight year old boy who was planning his own funereal.
    Helium ballons inside the coffin and eight on the outside ...to make sure he got to heaven quicker.
    He wanted help to go as soon as possible.
    When the little guy died me and the missus sobbed our hearts out in a pub.
    He was one hell of a charcter.
    He wanted to die but no one would help him.
    Then there are the parents f...amily ..carers who are close to these people and the hell they visit on a regular basis is very real.
    Your all mostly busy intellectualising it all withou much of a clue what the realities are from what I can see.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    Your all mostly busy intellectualising it all withou much of a clue what the realities are from what I can see.
    i think more than you think have experienxe of death and suffering. i witnessed my mum suffer cancer for four years before she died.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Well for the obvious reason that you aren't ready to die yet, and are being forced to end your life sooner than necessary, just to be assured a dignified death.

    Firstly, there is no dignity in death.

    Secondly, the very act of killing yourself or asking someone else to do it is also ending your life sooner than necessary.
    That's a big deal, since with a lot of degenerative diseases you won't know the prognosis, and may end losing years of a good quality life to avoid suffering a lot at death, which is unnecessary when you could easily make it known that once you are past a certain point, you'd like help to die.

    And this is one of my fundamental issues with this whole debate. Quality of life. Define it.

    Does someone who is paralysed, or who has learning disabilities, have a lower quality of life. Or are they just unable to do the same as someone able bodied?
Sign In or Register to comment.