The Law has spoken!

We have travelled this path before. With Debbie Purdy, with Craig Ewart, with Chris Woodhead; along with many, many others who have not caught the headlines.

Parliament has decided, and the Courts have spoken, that the Law is firm on this matter. To assist someone to die is illegal, is against the Law.

My view is quite simple, if Parliament decides that to assist someone to die is not against the law; I would certainly continue to argue against that decision; but the Law of the land has then stated otherwise. Homosexual Marriage is something I abhor, but, unfortunately because it has been made legal, I have to accept the fact.

Individuals who have challenged the Law have lost, every time. Some, like Tony Nicklinson, choose the legal route, who denied himself food, but died from pneumonia.

Noel Conway wants to die on his terms. That is against the Law. Mr. Conway wants to die with drug assistance from medical people. But Mr. Conway has the choice, if he wishes, to die tomorrow. All he has to do is refuse his ventilator, and he suffocates; he can deny himself food, and he dies from starvation. Suicide is a straight-forward option, and no-one can stop him; but he wants someone else to do the dirty work, he wants someone to feed him the pill, he wants someone else to be involved, and that, folks, is simply against the Law!

So what is his problem?

6 comments for “The Law has spoken!

  1. Lord T
    July 17, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    Hardly the same. Starving to death is no easy, struggling for breath is not easy but going to sleep as normal and not waking up is a nice way to go.

    It is about time they changed this law. It is inhumane.

  2. woodsy42
    July 17, 2017 at 1:06 pm

    OK. So does that mean switching off Charlie Gard’s life support is morally equivalent to assisted suicide or not? Is there any moral difference between witholding a pill to prevent aa death or witholding a pill with the deliberate intent to end a life, especially when the person cannot communicate for themselves?

  3. Old Geezer
    July 17, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    You should all read the history of when this was tried in Germany in the 1930s, and study the outcome of that little experiment.

    • John in cheshire
      July 17, 2017 at 3:58 pm

      You are correct. Euthanasia in any form is wrong and it’s always the Godless lefties who champion it. A rose by any other name is still murder.

  4. Mudplugger
    July 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    The problem for law-makers in this emotionally difficult area is to structure a law in such a way that genuine relief from suffering may be made medically available to those personally capable of making that decision, but within the same law also to provide adequate protection against its careless application or the many shades of abuse which such a process may enable.

    Until such time as a suitable formula can be established, I guess we will be stuck with many unfortunate people undergoing unnecessary and agonising suffering which they are legally incapable of ending. I do not take comfort in that. In the same situation as some of the reported cases , I would prefer a legalised form of exit to any prolonged suffering, but I would also prefer that facility to have adequate safeguards against its abuse. Therein lies the challenge.

    It will be difficult/impossible to conduct a rational debate on this topic without various parties with their own moral axes to grind banging their drums and muddying the waters and, in the process, detracting from the real suffering of the victims.

    • July 19, 2017 at 2:59 am

      “”moral axes to grind “”

      Hmmm. There are morals and there are faux-morals. Many of the latter need grinding.

Comments are closed.