Assisted-Suicide or Murder? - The Tony Nicklinson Story

[MrSmith]

The bickering can cease now please or i will be issuing bans.

 

What bickering, it’s a civilized discussion.

[janie48]

It's nothing to do with 'black and white' (always nice to erect a strawman for a smoke-screen isn't it:) )

 

This is about denying a person who is being forced to endure a horrible 'life', where they are immobile, unable to carry out any of the normal daily activities common to human beings, who are forced to endure the humiliation of having others perform those activites on them, and, who, having made the decision to end their life, are denied even that by various 'do-gooder's'.

 

Looked at from the perspective of the victim, it's nothing other than a sick torture, and, all they've got to look forward to is the continuation of that torture till the day they die.

 

Yes, their decision to die, if permitted, would of course affect their families, but-

 

1. assuming their families are against it- to be blunt, it's for those family members to cope with: the decision is simply nopt theirs to make, and, any suffering their experience as a result, is insignificant in comparison to the horrific 'living-death' the victim would have to endure to keep them happy

 

2. in this case, and many others, the majority of the family members are actually in support of the persons choice to die- why? because they love the person and respect their right to choose their own destiny.

The strawman and smoke-screen issue as you describe it, wasn't deliberately intended to misrepresent you,it was a response to a reply that used emotive language with an over-critical note, at least thats how i saw it.The way i replied isn't my normal style but at the time it was the only way i could think of to get a point across.

Your posts express your feelings in a compassionate way,which is impressive. and i can understand why you feel that that way but don't misjudge all who hold an opposite view to yours or regard them all as in your words "do gooders" whose sole concern is to only to control the lives of others.

I am trying to look at the situation from a broader perspective thats all,and not from one position.

They're are millions of disabled people who are dependent on others,some of them have been all their lives, should society make them feel they are a burdon,and as their dependancy increases,should they be made to feel guilty for being alive.

I could go on and on passionately about this, pvs, teriminal illness, and the lot because i've seen it all from a close position and i take no pleasure in seeing anyone suffer.

[Aleksandr]

Tony Nicklinson was forced to die through starvation. This country should be thoroughly ashamed.

[RootsBooster]

Tony Nicklinson was forced to die through starvation. This country should be thoroughly ashamed.

 

It happens every day. If we should be ashamed, it should have been a long time ago.

[Agony]

It's a shame that's only thing he did have control over

[onewheeldave]

The strawman and smoke-screen issue as you describe it, wasn't deliberately intended to misrepresent you,it was a response to a reply that used emotive language with an over-critical note, at least thats how i saw it.The way i replied isn't my normal style but at the time it was the only way i could think of to get a point across.

Your posts express your feelings in a compassionate way,which is impressive. and i can understand why you feel that that way but don't misjudge all who hold an opposite view to yours or regard them all as in your words "do gooders" whose sole concern is to only to control the lives of others.

 

Apologies if my post used overly 'emotive language'- this subject is one that does provoke a lot of anger in me.

 

It's 2012 and we supposedly live in a civilised society. Yet that society has always, and continues to, interefere in the rights of others to make decisions about their own lives, and deaths.

 

Prior to this, our society victimised homosexuals- it's not that long ago that consenting male adults broke the law if they had sex, and, many were imprisoned for it.

 

It's not that long ago that suicide was illegal, and, failed suicides could be imprisoned.

 

Now those laws are seen as being what they were, utter nonsense, and deeply immoral.

 

Bear in mind though, that just as we currently have a debate with two sides on the issue of assisted suicide, that back in those dark days, there were many who argued that homosexuality and suicide should remain illegal.

 

Millions of people have, and will continue to suffer incredibly, because of our 'laws' on assisted suicide, including high-publicity cases like the subject of this thread, and, of course, Terry Pratchet, who also faces a huge uphill struggle in the last years of his life, in trying to assert the right to die as he sees fit.

 

....but don't misjudge all who hold an opposite view to yours or regard them all as in your words "do gooders" whose sole concern is to only to control the lives of others.

 

Believe me, I don't.

 

One thing that has become very clear to me in my 46 years of living in this world, is that very little of the evil that people do is motivated by hurting others.

 

It's usually the consequence of good intentions- even the likes of Hitler believed they were actually doing what was necessary to improve the situation of his/their own people and the world in general.

 

But I'm glad you mentioned 'control'- because, where evil is performed, there's usually a fair bit of attempting to control others going on, albeit, control seen as being, in the eyes of the controllers, as being for the ultimate benefit of those they endeavour to control.

 

Once you try to inflict control over others, whether or not it is, in your eyes, for the benefit of them or others, there's a serious risk that, regardless of the original intent, evil could ensue.

 

In my experience, the best preventative is to, wherever possible, let people live their lives the way they want.

 

If their choices harm others, then of course, control/restriction may be caled for, but that's got to be a balance between the level of harm caused, against the harm caused to those you restrict.

 

Here, those who oppose the rights of people to their lives, are basically, in many cases, condemning that person to the kind of living hell that few able-bodies people could endure.

 

It's insulting, degrading, inhumane and, directed towards the most disabled and vulnerable human beings on this planet.

 

So the 'harm' that supposedly will occur to their relatives must be weighed against that, and, it's pretty clear that that equation does not balance.

 

As for the other arguement, that it will somehow encourage other disabled people to feel pressure to have their lives ended so as to not inconvenience others- it's a valid concern, and, there must be appropriate legislation in place to minimise such bullying happening.

 

So the appropriate solution is, to ensure such legislation is put in place: not to conveniently avoid that issue by inflicting a horrific 'living death' on those individuals who do sincerely wish to have their life terminated.

 

Their suffering should not be prolonged simply to save society the bother of thinking through, and putting in place, legislation to protect other disabled people from being pushed into making a decision they don't want to make.

[SUPERDREAM]

Apologies if my post used overly 'emotive language'- this subject is one that does provoke a lot of anger in me.

 

It's 2012 and we supposedly live in a civilised society. Yet that society has always, and continues to, interefere in the rights of others to make decisions about their own lives, and deaths.

 

Prior to this, our society victimised homosexuals- it's not that long ago that consenting male adults broke the law if they had sex, and, many were imprisoned for it.

 

It's not that long ago that suicide was illegal, and, failed suicides could be imprisoned.

 

Now those laws are seen as being what they were, utter nonsense, and deeply immoral.

 

Bear in mind though, that just as we currently have a debate with two sides on the issue of assisted suicide, that back in those dark days, there were many who argued that homosexuality and suicide should remain illegal.

 

Millions of people have, and will continue to suffer incredibly, because of our 'laws' on assisted suicide, including high-publicity cases like the subject of this thread, and, of course, Terry Pratchet, who also faces a huge uphill struggle in the last years of his life, in trying to assert the right to die as he sees fit.

 

 

 

Believe me, I don't.

 

One thing that has become very clear to me in my 46 years of living in this world, is that very little of the evil that people do is motivated by hurting others.

 

It's usually the consequence of good intentions- even the likes of Hitler believed they were actually doing what was necessary to improve the situation of his/their own people and the world in general.

 

But I'm glad you mentioned 'control'- because, where evil is performed, there's usually a fair bit of attempting to control others going on, albeit, control seen as being, in the eyes of the controllers, as being for the ultimate benefit of those they endeavour to control.

 

Once you try to inflict control over others, whether or not it is, in your eyes, for the benefit of them or others, there's a serious risk that, regardless of the original intent, evil could ensue.

 

In my experience, the best preventative is to, wherever possible, let people live their lives the way they want.

 

If their choices harm others, then of course, control/restriction may be caled for, but that's got to be a balance between the level of harm caused, against the harm caused to those you restrict.

 

Here, those who oppose the rights of people to their lives, are basically, in many cases, condemning that person to the kind of living hell that few able-bodies people could endure.

 

It's insulting, degrading, inhumane and, directed towards the most disabled and vulnerable human beings on this planet.

 

So the 'harm' that supposedly will occur to their relatives must be weighed against that, and, it's pretty clear that that equation does not balance.

 

As for the other arguement, that it will somehow encourage other disabled people to feel pressure to have their lives ended so as to not inconvenience others- it's a valid concern, and, there must be appropriate legislation in place to minimise such bullying happening.

 

So the appropriate solution is, to ensure such legislation is put in place: not to conveniently avoid that issue by inflicting a horrific 'living death' on those individuals who do sincerely wish to have their life terminated.

 

Their suffering should not be prolonged simply to save society the bother of thinking through, and putting in place, legislation to protect other disabled people from being pushed into making a decision they don't want to make.

 

Thats quite an epic, Dave. But for the laymen of us, are you for it or against it?

[Agony]

Yes dave but it can't apply to all disabled people, just the terminally ill to have the choice. I can see one day the law being changed for terminally ill cancer patients having the right but I think for the illness tony suffered may be a while off yet before even being considered though I could understand tony nicklinsons frustration of his life. Not being able to even join in conversation is awful

[SUPERDREAM]

For all of us that watched the show, it seemed pretty clear that this guy knew what he wanted. His life must have been miserable as sin, and god forbid that it happens to any of us or our families, im sure we may think in the same way as Tony did. I do like to pee about here on the forum, but some things cannot be trivialised. Rest in Peace, Tony. and to the Judges that denied him his dignity, you are all a bunch of pompous clowns. This man was made to feel worthless by your decision, and for that, may you choke on your smoked salmon. The peers of this decision should make their verdicts on an individual basis, and not hide behind the "It might make others vunerable" dog-turd. I have greater respect for this man than any of these evil, spineless tawts.

[onewheeldave]

Yes dave but it can't apply to all disabled people, just the terminally ill to have the choice. I can see one day the law being changed for terminally ill cancer patients having the right but I think for the illness tony suffered may be a while off yet before even being considered though I could understand tony nicklinsons frustration of his life. Not being able to even join in conversation is awful

 

Well, actually, I think all people, full stop, have the absolute right to decide when their lives should end: clearly our 'civilisation' is currently nowhere near an acceptance of that.

 

However, people as severely disabled as Tony, regardless of whether their condition is terminal or not, should have that right- for the reasons given in my previous posts.

 

This continual imposition of arbitrary conditions, such as 'only for the terminally ill' is nothing more than the standard setting up of 'strawmen' typically used when people can't come up with an actual argument/reasons for their position.