In Tony Nicklinson Loses High Court Right-to-die Case, James Gallagher writes about the recent UK Hight Court decision against Tony Nicklinson's request to allow his doctors to kill him and not be charged with murder. Gallagher say that although the judges agreed with Nicklinson, who is in good health but suffers from locked-in syndrome, that his situation is awful, they unanimously argued that such a major change in law should be made by politicians in parliament, not by a court.
Although some progress has been made in the UK and other countries on right-to-die cases, this "deeply moving" case, as Lord Justice Toulson describes it (¶ 10), shows that much greater changes are needed before UK law delivers justice to some of its citizens who most desperately need it. At the moment, the laws relating to murder are causing massive injustice to people like Tony Nicklinson. He, like others in his situation, is in very good health, and likely to live for many years, but he has been unable to control any of his body below the head since a stroke in 2005. He is, as the name locked-in syndrome suggests, a fully conscious, intelligent and sane man whose mind is locked in a body over which it has absolutely no control. He is dependent on other people to do everything, from feeding him to going to the toilet. It is not surprising that he finds this a "living nightmare" (¶ 1) from which he wishes to escape. He cannot kill himself to end his miserable life.
I agree with the judges reasoning. They could not have made any other decision without making a major change in UK law relating to murder. It is the responsibility of parliaments and politicians, acting to best represent citizens, who should make such fundamental changes to law. Sadly, it doesn't look like the politicians will do the right and just thing soon, even though a majority of UK and US citizens do now feel that laws should be changed to allow the merciful act for which Tony Nicklinson has begged. Politicians listen too much to the barbaric superstitions and irrational ideas of religious groups whose primitive texts blind them to reality and to moral right.
The law relating to murder is, in this case, wholly unjust. The legal definition of murder needs to be changed so that any act which kills at the at the freely made and well-reasoned request of a sane person does not count as murder and is not subject to any legal punishment. This change would allow Tony's doctors to kill him in a dignified and humane way, to the benefit of all and the harm of none.
__________
Reference
And in a poll on Australian newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald, a whopping 95% of the 23,991 respondents who have so far voted favour Tony being allowed to die as he wishes.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see this evidence that my country's moral sense is in good health.
Reference
'Condemned to a life of torture': UK denies right-to-die legal challenge. (2012, August 17). The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved August 17, 2012 from http://www.smh.com.au/world/condemned-to-a-life-of-torture-uk-denies-righttodie-legal-challenge-20120817-24bya.html#poll
One common reason people give for opposing assisted suicide or active euthanasia is that poor, dependent or uneducated people will be pressured into it. But as "In Ill Doctor, a Surprise Reflection of Who Picks Assisted Suicide" shows, where such options are available, it is the successful, intelligent and well-educated who are most likely to make use of the right to die as they wish, rather than in indignity at the wish of others (Hafner, 2012).
ReplyDeleteIs there any solid reason why rational adults should not be legally allowed to choose when and how they die?
Is there any sound reason why doctors should not be able to legally provide such a service to patients who ask for it?
Reference
Hafner, K. (2012, August 11). In ill Doctor, a surprise reflection of who picks assisted suicide. The New York Times. Retrieved August 17, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/health/policy/in-ill-doctor-a-surprise-reflection-of-who-picks-assisted-suicide.html
Sadly, Tony has now died a miserable death, one for which grossly unjust laws combined with evil and irrational social values is responsible ("Right-to-die Man", 2012).
ReplyDeleteAfter the legal judgement against him last week, he refused to eat and caught pneumonia, resulting in a rapid death. But had the law and society been just, moral and rational, he could have died far more pleasantly, humanely and decently. Starvation and pneumonia is not how human beings should be forced by society to die.
I think that examples such as this prove that simply being accepted by a society, any society, cannot make something morally right, just or reasonable. There is more to moral right and justice than merely being legal or popular, and many cultures, in this case England, have elements in their culture that are seriously immoral. In this case, British politicians and society are responsible for the injustice forced on a man who was truly in need of help, and from whom his own society denied the urgently needed and asked for help.
Reference
Right-to-die man Tony Nicklinson dead after refusing food. (2012, August 22). BBC News. Retrieved August 22, 2012 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19341722