The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic /news/reprint.html?in_review_id=466236
-----
Diane Pretty has lost her High Court battle to die with dignity by commiting suicide, assisted by her husband.
Mrs. Pretty suffers from Motor Neurone Disease, which has paralysed her from the neck down. Her intellect is unimpared; she has an active, fully coherent mind, but her body does not respond to her wishes.
She no longer wishes to be trapped in the prison that is her body, yet the law refuses to allow her husband to release her without facing prosecution for murder.
Is this right or fair?
I do not wish to degrade Mrs. Pretty's situation, but we all know that if she were an animal of any kind, we would have no hesitation in 'putting her to sleep' in order to prevent any suffering. We do what we think is best for animals - they have no say in the matter.
Mrs. Pretty is of sound mind - she can make her own decisions, and has decided that she doesn't want to be trapped any more. As I understand it, she wishes to die not only to relive her own suffering, but also that of her family, who all - as hard as it may be - back her decision.
Yet the law says that she must live, and suffer.
Who is right, and who is wrong? If someone wishes to die, and a friend or family member is willing to assist, then - as long as there is a valid reason such as this - should the law be able to prevent it? And should the assistant be prosecuted?
I firmly believe not.
I cycle to and from work; I have done for over 11 years, and cycled to and from school for years before that. My mum has always, *always* worried about me having an accident. I've had a few, but fortunately nothing serious so far.
But I have told my parents that if anything ever happens to me which leaves me severely paralysed or seriously disabled in any way, that I don't wish to be kept alive. If any accident should leave me in a state similar to Mrs. Pretty, I would also choose not to carry on living, and would under no circumstances want my parents prosecuted if they assisted me.
I can think of no greater suffering than to have a perfectly active, fully-functioning mind trapped in a useless body.
Taking a human life in 'normal' circumstances is undoubtedly wrong, but surely not in these circumstances? And certainly not if it is at the person's own request.
Everyone that I know believes that Mrs. Pretty's husband should under no circumstances be prosecuted if he assists his wife. What is your opinion on Euthanasia? I am interested in everyones opinions, but particularly the views and of anyone opposed to it, and especially those with any strong religious convictions.
One crucial question:
If the High Court's ruling were to be ignored, and Mr. Pretty were to assist his wife and be prosecuted, do you think that any jury would actually convict him?
-----
Diane Pretty has lost her High Court battle to die with dignity by commiting suicide, assisted by her husband.
Mrs. Pretty suffers from Motor Neurone Disease, which has paralysed her from the neck down. Her intellect is unimpared; she has an active, fully coherent mind, but her body does not respond to her wishes.
She no longer wishes to be trapped in the prison that is her body, yet the law refuses to allow her husband to release her without facing prosecution for murder.
Is this right or fair?
I do not wish to degrade Mrs. Pretty's situation, but we all know that if she were an animal of any kind, we would have no hesitation in 'putting her to sleep' in order to prevent any suffering. We do what we think is best for animals - they have no say in the matter.
Mrs. Pretty is of sound mind - she can make her own decisions, and has decided that she doesn't want to be trapped any more. As I understand it, she wishes to die not only to relive her own suffering, but also that of her family, who all - as hard as it may be - back her decision.
Yet the law says that she must live, and suffer.
Who is right, and who is wrong? If someone wishes to die, and a friend or family member is willing to assist, then - as long as there is a valid reason such as this - should the law be able to prevent it? And should the assistant be prosecuted?
I firmly believe not.
I cycle to and from work; I have done for over 11 years, and cycled to and from school for years before that. My mum has always, *always* worried about me having an accident. I've had a few, but fortunately nothing serious so far.
But I have told my parents that if anything ever happens to me which leaves me severely paralysed or seriously disabled in any way, that I don't wish to be kept alive. If any accident should leave me in a state similar to Mrs. Pretty, I would also choose not to carry on living, and would under no circumstances want my parents prosecuted if they assisted me.
I can think of no greater suffering than to have a perfectly active, fully-functioning mind trapped in a useless body.
Taking a human life in 'normal' circumstances is undoubtedly wrong, but surely not in these circumstances? And certainly not if it is at the person's own request.
Everyone that I know believes that Mrs. Pretty's husband should under no circumstances be prosecuted if he assists his wife. What is your opinion on Euthanasia? I am interested in everyones opinions, but particularly the views and of anyone opposed to it, and especially those with any strong religious convictions.
One crucial question:
If the High Court's ruling were to be ignored, and Mr. Pretty were to assist his wife and be prosecuted, do you think that any jury would actually convict him?
I agree. If I was in that kind of state I'd definitely not want to go on.
I'd rather pass away peacefully than carry on a life like that.
It should be up to the person themselves. Human life is a gift not to be wasted, but when that gift is in a state like that, then it wouldn't be fair to make the person carry on.
I'd rather pass away peacefully than carry on a life like that.
It should be up to the person themselves. Human life is a gift not to be wasted, but when that gift is in a state like that, then it wouldn't be fair to make the person carry on.
Another example of people forcing their values on others.
People of sound mind that wish to die and want loved ones to help?
What business is that of anyone elses?
And I'm talking about sound-mind here.
People of sound mind that wish to die and want loved ones to help?
What business is that of anyone elses?
And I'm talking about sound-mind here.
I agree - not everyone will want to die. Stephen Hawking is outstanding, and proof indeed that not everyone suffers in the same way.
However, I suspect that he is also able to have a more comfortable life due to his financial situation.
It's a shame that money is such a factor.
However, I suspect that he is also able to have a more comfortable life due to his financial situation.
It's a shame that money is such a factor.
Having said that, not everyone who has a complete mind, but no bodily control is simply wasting life.
Look at Stephen Hawkings, and all he's achieved.
But if she wishes to die, then she should be allowed to do so.
Look at Stephen Hawkings, and all he's achieved.
But if she wishes to die, then she should be allowed to do so.
I think that's disgusting.
I'd heard about a this case a few weeks ago, but didn't realise they were near to giving a verdict. This verdict sucks.
If she wants to die, and her family back her, she should be allowed to do so.
If her husband helped her to die, and he was taken to court for it, and I was in the jury, I'd return not-guilty, without hesitation.
I can't believe we are kinder to animals than we are to our own species. It's ridiculous.
I'd heard about a this case a few weeks ago, but didn't realise they were near to giving a verdict. This verdict sucks.
If she wants to die, and her family back her, she should be allowed to do so.
If her husband helped her to die, and he was taken to court for it, and I was in the jury, I'd return not-guilty, without hesitation.
I can't believe we are kinder to animals than we are to our own species. It's ridiculous.
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic /news/reprint.html?in_review_id=466236
-----
Diane Pretty has lost her High Court battle to die with dignity by commiting suicide, assisted by her husband.
Mrs. Pretty suffers from Motor Neurone Disease, which has paralysed her from the neck down. Her intellect is unimpared; she has an active, fully coherent mind, but her body does not respond to her wishes.
She no longer wishes to be trapped in the prison that is her body, yet the law refuses to allow her husband to release her without facing prosecution for murder.
Is this right or fair?
I do not wish to degrade Mrs. Pretty's situation, but we all know that if she were an animal of any kind, we would have no hesitation in 'putting her to sleep' in order to prevent any suffering. We do what we think is best for animals - they have no say in the matter.
Mrs. Pretty is of sound mind - she can make her own decisions, and has decided that she doesn't want to be trapped any more. As I understand it, she wishes to die not only to relive her own suffering, but also that of her family, who all - as hard as it may be - back her decision.
Yet the law says that she must live, and suffer.
Who is right, and who is wrong? If someone wishes to die, and a friend or family member is willing to assist, then - as long as there is a valid reason such as this - should the law be able to prevent it? And should the assistant be prosecuted?
I firmly believe not.
I cycle to and from work; I have done for over 11 years, and cycled to and from school for years before that. My mum has always, *always* worried about me having an accident. I've had a few, but fortunately nothing serious so far.
But I have told my parents that if anything ever happens to me which leaves me severely paralysed or seriously disabled in any way, that I don't wish to be kept alive. If any accident should leave me in a state similar to Mrs. Pretty, I would also choose not to carry on living, and would under no circumstances want my parents prosecuted if they assisted me.
I can think of no greater suffering than to have a perfectly active, fully-functioning mind trapped in a useless body.
Taking a human life in 'normal' circumstances is undoubtedly wrong, but surely not in these circumstances? And certainly not if it is at the person's own request.
Everyone that I know believes that Mrs. Pretty's husband should under no circumstances be prosecuted if he assists his wife. What is your opinion on Euthanasia? I am interested in everyones opinions, but particularly the views and of anyone opposed to it, and especially those with any strong religious convictions.
One crucial question:
If the High Court's ruling were to be ignored, and Mr. Pretty were to assist his wife and be prosecuted, do you think that any jury would actually convict him?
-----
Diane Pretty has lost her High Court battle to die with dignity by commiting suicide, assisted by her husband.
Mrs. Pretty suffers from Motor Neurone Disease, which has paralysed her from the neck down. Her intellect is unimpared; she has an active, fully coherent mind, but her body does not respond to her wishes.
She no longer wishes to be trapped in the prison that is her body, yet the law refuses to allow her husband to release her without facing prosecution for murder.
Is this right or fair?
I do not wish to degrade Mrs. Pretty's situation, but we all know that if she were an animal of any kind, we would have no hesitation in 'putting her to sleep' in order to prevent any suffering. We do what we think is best for animals - they have no say in the matter.
Mrs. Pretty is of sound mind - she can make her own decisions, and has decided that she doesn't want to be trapped any more. As I understand it, she wishes to die not only to relive her own suffering, but also that of her family, who all - as hard as it may be - back her decision.
Yet the law says that she must live, and suffer.
Who is right, and who is wrong? If someone wishes to die, and a friend or family member is willing to assist, then - as long as there is a valid reason such as this - should the law be able to prevent it? And should the assistant be prosecuted?
I firmly believe not.
I cycle to and from work; I have done for over 11 years, and cycled to and from school for years before that. My mum has always, *always* worried about me having an accident. I've had a few, but fortunately nothing serious so far.
But I have told my parents that if anything ever happens to me which leaves me severely paralysed or seriously disabled in any way, that I don't wish to be kept alive. If any accident should leave me in a state similar to Mrs. Pretty, I would also choose not to carry on living, and would under no circumstances want my parents prosecuted if they assisted me.
I can think of no greater suffering than to have a perfectly active, fully-functioning mind trapped in a useless body.
Taking a human life in 'normal' circumstances is undoubtedly wrong, but surely not in these circumstances? And certainly not if it is at the person's own request.
Everyone that I know believes that Mrs. Pretty's husband should under no circumstances be prosecuted if he assists his wife. What is your opinion on Euthanasia? I am interested in everyones opinions, but particularly the views and of anyone opposed to it, and especially those with any strong religious convictions.
One crucial question:
If the High Court's ruling were to be ignored, and Mr. Pretty were to assist his wife and be prosecuted, do you think that any jury would actually convict him?