Very sad end to a very sad story
if proof was ever needed that you are not the owner of your own body this is it. The State dictates, for what it believes is the most morally correct reasons but in fact they have acted in the most debase way by denying him what should be his right. Instead he died in a horrible way - starvation is not a nice way to die.
We should never allow the abuse of assisted suicide especially for vulnerable people, but when it is obvious that this is the choice of the person and not others then there should be no authority greater than that person's right to choose!
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 14:17,
Reply)
This very muchly.
The fact that he was refused denial to go to another country where it is legal too for fear his wife and accomplices would be jailed just adds to the courts ( no other way of putting it ) cuntish behaviour.
(
Chilli Heatwave ,shit, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 14:23,
Reply)
It really isn't.
While there is such a thing as judge-made law, it doesn't follow that the judges could do whatever the hell they liked: they're still bound by statute and precedent, and can only create law where statute or precedent are unclear or in internal conflict.
The Suicide Act says what it says, and their Lordships can't change that. If you read the ruling, they're sypathetic to the plight of the plaintiffs - but there's nothing they could have done.
As to whether there would be a prosecution: the chances are that there wouldn't be, because it wouldn't be in the public interest.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 14:42,
Reply)
If such laws are set in concrete to that extent - why even bother with the courts then?
Other than as a media showcase to raise awareness the lawyers must have known it wasn't going to come to anything, unless there is far greater flexibility than you give credit for. Judges have been known to set precedent often to the dismay of the public, surely a judge can take a stand and set precedent with his/her ruling? If not then the whole thing is a nonsense of bureaucracy.
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 16:14,
Reply)
As per my blog post,
I'm not wholly convinced that the case should have come to court.
I mean: Nicklinson's legal team was trying to show that the law could accommodate what they were after via the doctrine of necessity and Article 8 rights - but I think that their case was incredibly flimsy, especially after the Pretty ruling dismissed her Art. 8 claims (correctly, in my view).
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION, 16:30: By this, I mean that the role of the judge in cases like this is to adjudicate when there's an ambiguity in the law (as determined by statute and precedent). But I don't see that there was any real ambiguity here. I think that the Nicklinson case was more about pushing the boundaries - which is why their Lordships ruled as they did: cf paras 150 and 151 of the ruling.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 16:26,
Reply)
Hmmmm...
It's true that you're not the owner of your body: it's an established legal principle that there is no property in the body, which means that noone owns it, and it's impossible to own it. That's generally taken to be a principle defensible on the grounds that it (usually) protects people.
As for the right to choose... well, it's one thing to choose to kill yourself, but quite another for another to be entitled to help. Like it or not, the situation is morally and legally a lot trickier than it's sometimes thought to be.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 14:46,
Reply)