Right-to-Die Clarification Win!
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8176713.stm
"A woman with multiple sclerosis has made legal history by winning her battle to have the law on assisted suicide clarified, her lawyers say."
As someone who believes that the law on this is ridiculous, I am VERY happy that the Lords have said it needs to be clarified.
FFS all she wants is to know what will and will not result in her husband being arrested if he goes with her! Why did that require such a long and costly fight?
She is terminally ill, MS is a nasty thing to have, all she wants is to die with a bit of dignity with her husband at her side, why does the law think that that is a crime!?
Hopefully this will be the first of many positive steps.
"A woman with multiple sclerosis has made legal history by winning her battle to have the law on assisted suicide clarified, her lawyers say."
As someone who believes that the law on this is ridiculous, I am VERY happy that the Lords have said it needs to be clarified.
FFS all she wants is to know what will and will not result in her husband being arrested if he goes with her! Why did that require such a long and costly fight?
She is terminally ill, MS is a nasty thing to have, all she wants is to die with a bit of dignity with her husband at her side, why does the law think that that is a crime!?
Hopefully this will be the first of many positive steps.
They may very well clarify the law by restating that assisted suicide is illegal.
She has just described this judgement as "like having your life back" - which is a tad ironic since she is fighting for the right to kill herself or have someone else kill her.
She has just described this judgement as "like having your life back" - which is a tad ironic since she is fighting for the right to kill herself or have someone else kill her.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 30th July 17:09
Eric Mc said:
They may very well clarify the law by restating that assisted suicide is illegal.
She has just described this judgement as "like having your life back" - which is a tad ironic since she is fighting for the right to kill herself or have someone else kill her.
Can't see this happening Eric (well at least I hope it doesn't). She has just described this judgement as "like having your life back" - which is a tad ironic since she is fighting for the right to kill herself or have someone else kill her.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 30th July 17:09
The authorities at the moment preferred to leave the law as it was but not to prosecute anyone who assisted anyone to die.
By forcing the issue, Debbie Purdy could find that her wish to have her life ended the way SHE wants even more effectively blocked. She is walking a legal tightrope here.
It's one of those situations where one hopes never to have to make such aa decision.
In the end, every case would have to be looked at separately. Imagine a jealous husband who has just killed His wife telling the police - "She asked me to kill her".
By forcing the issue, Debbie Purdy could find that her wish to have her life ended the way SHE wants even more effectively blocked. She is walking a legal tightrope here.
It's one of those situations where one hopes never to have to make such aa decision.
In the end, every case would have to be looked at separately. Imagine a jealous husband who has just killed His wife telling the police - "She asked me to kill her".
It's not that straightforward.
At the moment she doesn't want to die as her quality if life is reasonable. But she does have a degenerative disease and, at some point in the future, she may very well want to die in a manner that suits her, rather than waste away. However, the problem is that if she is too far gone to administer any sort of fatal dose to herself at some future date and her husband assists her, then HE should be convicted of murder - under curent law.
At the moment, no such convictions are taking place because the courts have been more or less told to turn a blind eye to the law of the land.
She thinks that this is a very unsatisfactory state and she wants clarification.
her problem is that the judge who clarifies the position may very well order all future courts NOT to ignore the law of the land - which would be a disaster for her and her husband.
At the moment she doesn't want to die as her quality if life is reasonable. But she does have a degenerative disease and, at some point in the future, she may very well want to die in a manner that suits her, rather than waste away. However, the problem is that if she is too far gone to administer any sort of fatal dose to herself at some future date and her husband assists her, then HE should be convicted of murder - under curent law.
At the moment, no such convictions are taking place because the courts have been more or less told to turn a blind eye to the law of the land.
She thinks that this is a very unsatisfactory state and she wants clarification.
her problem is that the judge who clarifies the position may very well order all future courts NOT to ignore the law of the land - which would be a disaster for her and her husband.
Eric Mc said:
her problem is that the judge who clarifies the position may very well order all future courts NOT to ignore the law of the land - which would be a disaster for her and her husband.
Yes, it's a huge risk for them, but on the other hand the current situation where prosecution apparently depends on the whim of the DPP is not better. That many instances have no been prosecuted to date does not mean that this would have continued into the future. Far better that everyone knows the law and how it will be applied than having to guess. Even if that clarification means that it is more strictly applied in future, because once it is definite it opens the possibility of it being changed, either by primary legislation or by being declared incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR (which doesn't in itself change the law but forces parliament to act to resolve the incompatibility).
Dick Fromage said:
Fine but where does this have a natural conclusion? That is to say, where is it acceptable to the whole populace that one human can kill another and where is it not acceptbale? I guess this is the clarification that she has asked for and we'll know shortly.
Don't doctors do this anyway,by upping morphine doses etc...?Eric Mc said:
It's not that straightforward.
At the moment she doesn't want to die as her quality if life is reasonable. But she does have a degenerative disease and, at some point in the future, she may very well want to die in a manner that suits her, rather than waste away. However, the problem is that if she is too far gone to administer any sort of fatal dose to herself at some future date and her husband assists her, then HE should be convicted of murder - under curent law.
At the moment, no such convictions are taking place because the courts have been more or less told to turn a blind eye to the law of the land.
She thinks that this is a very unsatisfactory state and she wants clarification.
her problem is that the judge who clarifies the position may very well order all future courts NOT to ignore the law of the land - which would be a disaster for her and her husband.
And a potential for disaster for anyone who has helped a loved one in the past.At the moment she doesn't want to die as her quality if life is reasonable. But she does have a degenerative disease and, at some point in the future, she may very well want to die in a manner that suits her, rather than waste away. However, the problem is that if she is too far gone to administer any sort of fatal dose to herself at some future date and her husband assists her, then HE should be convicted of murder - under curent law.
At the moment, no such convictions are taking place because the courts have been more or less told to turn a blind eye to the law of the land.
She thinks that this is a very unsatisfactory state and she wants clarification.
her problem is that the judge who clarifies the position may very well order all future courts NOT to ignore the law of the land - which would be a disaster for her and her husband.
GKP said:
Strong woman. 
She's an idiot. The law is avoiding this issue and not prosecuting anybody . . . if it has to be clarified then it will be made clear that assisting suicide is currently illegal and people are therefore like to be arrested and charged. Will make things worse, not better.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff