TopCat
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2013
I have recently taken an interest in the case of Tony Nicklinson, a man who suffered a stroke that left him completely paralysed, unable to move any of his limbs except for his head and eyes; a condition known clinically as 'locked in syndrome'. For years he wanted to end his life, but was unable to do so without help. He campaigned to the High Court to state that it would be lawful for a doctor to help him end his life. If they refused, he wanted them to state that the current law was incompatible with his human rights. The court refused to do both of these things. Shortly afterwards, he refused food and water and died of pneumonia. He passed away in August 2012, but had lived for seven years prior in this state. No doubt, he probably would have lived on for many more years too, but actively chose to end his life after his case lost.
Nicklinson, perhaps quite rightly had no interest in living with such a debilitating condition, yet was unable to end his life on his own terms and in a peaceful way. I am sure many here would agree that living with such a condition would be considered the stuff of nightmares. On a personal level, my 80 year old grandmother is presently living with terminal cancer, is bedridden and in constant pain. The law where she resides stipulates that assisted suicide is illegal, despite the fact that her continued suffering is arguably in the interests of neither her family nor the state. Clearly, there is something fundamentally wrong with the current legislation when an animal is treated more humanely than an actual human being. This obviously begs the question as to whether there should be the universal option of dying a peaceful death for those suffering with chronic, terminal or life-altering conditions, if no improvement is deemed possible.
Advancements in medical science now mean that there exists the capability of keeping a person alive artificially for many years, even when doing so, it could be argued would not be in their best interests. Indeed, ventilators and other life-sustaining machinery can effectively keep a person alive long after their natural expiry date. Arguments in support of such measures usually involve the suggestion that life is precious in someway, and that for this reason it should be sustained at all costs. Yet, is life really as precious as we're led to believe? Ironically, I have found that those who often campaign against right-to-die on a ethical basis do not consider the ethics of artificially keeping somebody alive in the first place. The suggestion that all life is precious could be seen as a selfish and idealistic view which does not take the person's suffering into account. I am aware of several cases where a person has been or is still being kept alive artificially, even when the person has no quality of life. There's one notable case of a woman in Ireland who has been kept alive since 2008, despite the fact that she has been unable to speak, swallow or move and has only been able to communicate by blinking her eyes, following brain surgery.
In my view, the right-to-die should be a basic human right given that death comes to us all at some point. I'd be interested in other people's views on this, too.
Nicklinson, perhaps quite rightly had no interest in living with such a debilitating condition, yet was unable to end his life on his own terms and in a peaceful way. I am sure many here would agree that living with such a condition would be considered the stuff of nightmares. On a personal level, my 80 year old grandmother is presently living with terminal cancer, is bedridden and in constant pain. The law where she resides stipulates that assisted suicide is illegal, despite the fact that her continued suffering is arguably in the interests of neither her family nor the state. Clearly, there is something fundamentally wrong with the current legislation when an animal is treated more humanely than an actual human being. This obviously begs the question as to whether there should be the universal option of dying a peaceful death for those suffering with chronic, terminal or life-altering conditions, if no improvement is deemed possible.
Advancements in medical science now mean that there exists the capability of keeping a person alive artificially for many years, even when doing so, it could be argued would not be in their best interests. Indeed, ventilators and other life-sustaining machinery can effectively keep a person alive long after their natural expiry date. Arguments in support of such measures usually involve the suggestion that life is precious in someway, and that for this reason it should be sustained at all costs. Yet, is life really as precious as we're led to believe? Ironically, I have found that those who often campaign against right-to-die on a ethical basis do not consider the ethics of artificially keeping somebody alive in the first place. The suggestion that all life is precious could be seen as a selfish and idealistic view which does not take the person's suffering into account. I am aware of several cases where a person has been or is still being kept alive artificially, even when the person has no quality of life. There's one notable case of a woman in Ireland who has been kept alive since 2008, despite the fact that she has been unable to speak, swallow or move and has only been able to communicate by blinking her eyes, following brain surgery.
In my view, the right-to-die should be a basic human right given that death comes to us all at some point. I'd be interested in other people's views on this, too.
Last edited:
