bluemonday Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 MS woman wins right-to-die fight Clicky Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "This historic judgement ensures the law keeps up with changes in society and crucially, provides a more rational deterrent to abuse than a blanket ban which is never enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I very sincerely hope that this will allow people to travel together to Switzerland or wherever in dignity and without fear of prosecution. I did however note that quote from the DPP: The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said he would publish an interim policy on when prosecutions could occur by September before putting the issue out to public consultation. Permanent policy will be published next spring. Hopefully this 'interim' policy will reflect common sense and humanity too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Very worrying ruling. This is asking the DPP to make the law, not legislators or the judiciary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 It is a very complex set of issues but I think I understand the logic. Currently legislation exists, but it is not clear how the DPP interprets that legislation. The lady concerned had asked for clarity and the DPP had refused, she challenged it and the judges agreed. The DPP now has to clarify exactly what the position is - interestingly if this was seen by pro-Life groups as being undully lenient they could also challenge this saying it was contary to the statute law - the advice can't overall, only clarify. There is a chance the clarity Ms Purdy recieves isn't what she wants to hear - the current law bans assisting suicide - it remains untested what this means - the process seems to be to first clarify this and then challenge it - either with a prosecution of someone who claims they weren't assisting a suicide but when the DPP claims they were, or via judicial review if pro-Life groups are able to convince a judge the DPP's guidance is contrary to the law. Its a complex business - the Island was once nearly a leader in this type of legislation, but it came to naught - I wonder if we could be again? What do people think - should Port Erin replace Geneva as a peaceful place for a peaceful death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 What do people think - should Port Erin replace Geneva as a peaceful place for a peaceful death? I thought that's why people went to PE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 What do people think - should Port Erin replace Geneva as a peaceful place for a peaceful death? I thought that's why people went to PE LOL. True. It's like a big fucking retirement home for rich english people down there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 LOL. True. It's like a big fucking retirement home for rich english people down there. You'd never guess it from the shops! I tend to agree with Chinahand on this one - if the reporting is accurate the matter is far from settled. The UK DPP could well decide that it is illegal to assist anyone to accelerate their death, however undignified or painful their condition may be. There was a case some years ago where a doctor was struck off and (I think) sent to prison at Winchester Assizes because a nurse reported him for administering an overdose of morphine to a lady who was very close to death and who had an illness where anything that touched her caused her frightful and unbearable pain - including even bed sheets. Her family supported the doctor, the law supported the nurse. I can understand why caution is needed in this area but if there is caution there should also be humanity. IMO an individual's needs and wants should come first, not last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Well done to Ms Purdy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenie Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Public (or media) opinion seems to have changed in favour of assisted suicide - perhaps in response to the aging population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Public (or media) opinion seems to have changed in favour of assisted suicide - perhaps in response to the aging population? or perhaps it is a response by the aging population? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenie Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Public (or media) opinion seems to have changed in favour of assisted suicide - perhaps in response to the aging population? or perhaps it is a response by the aging population? I hope it is public opinion and not the government thinking of their pension and NHS budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Very worrying ruling. This is asking the DPP to make the law, not legislators or the judiciary. The DPP is almost certainly better qualified than the former (failed librarians, etc.), and probably just as well qualified as the latter. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Very worrying ruling. This is asking the DPP to make the law, not legislators or the judiciary. The DPP is almost certainly better qualified than the former (failed librarians, etc.), and probably just as well qualified as the latter. S You're a muppet. It's to do with representation of the people who will be bound by the rules, not qualifications. I am very qualified, but that doesn't give me the right to make laws. That's a dictatorship. We live in a democracy (ostensibly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I hope it is public opinion and not the government thinking of their pension and NHS budget. There is another thought. How many of us would wish to spend maybe years in an old folks home? And paying dearly for the ' pleasure' by losing most of what you wanted to leave to your children in the process. The Swiss option could ensure a dignified end and an inheritance left intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 LOL. True. It's like a big fucking retirement home for rich english people down there. You'd never guess it from the shops! What, haberdashery and fishing tackle in the same premises! I thought the issue was around what constitutes "assistance" i.e. if he helps her travel to Digitas could he be prosecuted on return? The danger being e.g. offspring decide to "assist" an elderly, infirm, confused parent on the same journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.