The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
From AOL News:
THE European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the husband of terminally-ill Diane Pretty cannot help her to commit suicide.
She wants her husband Brian to be allowed to help her end her life without fear of prosecution.
The European court ruling was her last hope of a legal seal of approval to what she sees as her right to die with dignity.
The 43-year-old, who lives in Luton, Bedfordshire, is dying from motor neurone disease and her life expectancy is described as "very poor".
The mother-of-two turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to promise immunity for Brian and subsequent appeals were rejected.
Despite being paralysed from the neck down Mrs Pretty travelled with her husband by ambulance from her home to Strasbourg last month to be present for the half-day case in front of the Human Rights judges.
She heard her lawyer argue that denying her the right to an assisted death when she chooses is a breach of the Human Rights Convention, which outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment".
- - - - - - - - - -
That's ridiculous. She wants to end her life. She's obviously reached the conclusion after discussions with her husband etc.
Why can't she go how she wants to. She wants to die with dignity, why do the courst have to get involved? I understand that euthanasia is illegal in this country, so her hsuband could go to jail.
I think that is wrong.
Thoughts?
THE European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the husband of terminally-ill Diane Pretty cannot help her to commit suicide.
She wants her husband Brian to be allowed to help her end her life without fear of prosecution.
The European court ruling was her last hope of a legal seal of approval to what she sees as her right to die with dignity.
The 43-year-old, who lives in Luton, Bedfordshire, is dying from motor neurone disease and her life expectancy is described as "very poor".
The mother-of-two turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to promise immunity for Brian and subsequent appeals were rejected.
Despite being paralysed from the neck down Mrs Pretty travelled with her husband by ambulance from her home to Strasbourg last month to be present for the half-day case in front of the Human Rights judges.
She heard her lawyer argue that denying her the right to an assisted death when she chooses is a breach of the Human Rights Convention, which outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment".
- - - - - - - - - -
That's ridiculous. She wants to end her life. She's obviously reached the conclusion after discussions with her husband etc.
Why can't she go how she wants to. She wants to die with dignity, why do the courst have to get involved? I understand that euthanasia is illegal in this country, so her hsuband could go to jail.
I think that is wrong.
Thoughts?
Page:
From AOL News:
THE European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the husband of terminally-ill Diane Pretty cannot help her to commit suicide.
She wants her husband Brian to be allowed to help her end her life without fear of prosecution.
The European court ruling was her last hope of a legal seal of approval to what she sees as her right to die with dignity.
The 43-year-old, who lives in Luton, Bedfordshire, is dying from motor neurone disease and her life expectancy is described as "very poor".
The mother-of-two turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to promise immunity for Brian and subsequent appeals were rejected.
Despite being paralysed from the neck down Mrs Pretty travelled with her husband by ambulance from her home to Strasbourg last month to be present for the half-day case in front of the Human Rights judges.
She heard her lawyer argue that denying her the right to an assisted death when she chooses is a breach of the Human Rights Convention, which outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment".
- - - - - - - - - -
That's ridiculous. She wants to end her life. She's obviously reached the conclusion after discussions with her husband etc.
Why can't she go how she wants to. She wants to die with dignity, why do the courst have to get involved? I understand that euthanasia is illegal in this country, so her hsuband could go to jail.
I think that is wrong.
Thoughts?
THE European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the husband of terminally-ill Diane Pretty cannot help her to commit suicide.
She wants her husband Brian to be allowed to help her end her life without fear of prosecution.
The European court ruling was her last hope of a legal seal of approval to what she sees as her right to die with dignity.
The 43-year-old, who lives in Luton, Bedfordshire, is dying from motor neurone disease and her life expectancy is described as "very poor".
The mother-of-two turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to promise immunity for Brian and subsequent appeals were rejected.
Despite being paralysed from the neck down Mrs Pretty travelled with her husband by ambulance from her home to Strasbourg last month to be present for the half-day case in front of the Human Rights judges.
She heard her lawyer argue that denying her the right to an assisted death when she chooses is a breach of the Human Rights Convention, which outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment".
- - - - - - - - - -
That's ridiculous. She wants to end her life. She's obviously reached the conclusion after discussions with her husband etc.
Why can't she go how she wants to. She wants to die with dignity, why do the courst have to get involved? I understand that euthanasia is illegal in this country, so her hsuband could go to jail.
I think that is wrong.
Thoughts?
I'd just roll my wheelchair off the top of a really high building if I was her. It'd do the same thing, and she wouldn't suffer if she can't feel any pain.
I think how she chooses to live/end her life is of no business but her own.
*cue whiny do-gooders "But what if she changed her mind" now*
*cue whiny do-gooders "But what if she changed her mind" now*
Small Frog wrote:
> I'd just roll my wheelchair off the top of a really high building if I
> was her. It'd do the same thing, and she wouldn't suffer if she can't
> feel any pain.
she's paralyised she can't do anything but force half a smile, she wants her hursband to kill her cos che can't do it herself
goverment feel that they have a right over everybody, they like to have power over people. So the only way this womens ever gonna die is if she waits until natural courses, or if her husband illegally kills her.
> I'd just roll my wheelchair off the top of a really high building if I
> was her. It'd do the same thing, and she wouldn't suffer if she can't
> feel any pain.
she's paralyised she can't do anything but force half a smile, she wants her hursband to kill her cos che can't do it herself
goverment feel that they have a right over everybody, they like to have power over people. So the only way this womens ever gonna die is if she waits until natural courses, or if her husband illegally kills her.
The problem is that it would have set a dangerous precedent. I think I would have made the same decision as the judge. Look at it this way:
The government is not willing to make any legislation on euthenasia (mainly because it doesn't like to alienate itself from anyone), therefore the judge only has the current legislation to work from.
This means that for the judge to allow this to happen, they must overturn the legislation, or find a way around it. This is dangerous. Without proper legislation, what is to stop the ruling being abused? Answer - nothing.
Meanwhile, because the ruling is made in the courts, the government can quite happily sit back and blame the whole thing on the judge, saying, well we didn't create the legislation, he overturned it.
What should happen: The judge has made the correct decision. He was not elected, the goverment has been. Tony Blair and the government now need to decide whether they want to overturn the existing legislation and follow Holland and Belgium into legalising this so-called crime. If they do, then it will be a fine day for the English Legal System. There will be proper and complete guidelines on euthenasia, and this poor woman can get her last wishes granted.
The government is not willing to make any legislation on euthenasia (mainly because it doesn't like to alienate itself from anyone), therefore the judge only has the current legislation to work from.
This means that for the judge to allow this to happen, they must overturn the legislation, or find a way around it. This is dangerous. Without proper legislation, what is to stop the ruling being abused? Answer - nothing.
Meanwhile, because the ruling is made in the courts, the government can quite happily sit back and blame the whole thing on the judge, saying, well we didn't create the legislation, he overturned it.
What should happen: The judge has made the correct decision. He was not elected, the goverment has been. Tony Blair and the government now need to decide whether they want to overturn the existing legislation and follow Holland and Belgium into legalising this so-called crime. If they do, then it will be a fine day for the English Legal System. There will be proper and complete guidelines on euthenasia, and this poor woman can get her last wishes granted.
If she were an animal in the same condition, she'd have no choice - she'd be "put to sleep" to prevent her suffering.
So the courts are basically saying, "tough - you'll have to suffer".
Which is wrong. Not much better than torturing someone, if you ask me.
So the courts are basically saying, "tough - you'll have to suffer".
Which is wrong. Not much better than torturing someone, if you ask me.
Yeah but the point is sovereignty here. I agree with the fact that she deserves to have the right to make the decision. But it is not for the courts to make the decision. That is for the government, but they are wimps and don't want to say either way. They have a chance now, with publice opinion as it is, they could bring in the legislation without too much argument.
But I bet they won't!
But I bet they won't!
Page: