In a recent judgment Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said: [FONT=Arial,Arial] [FONT=Arial,Arial] "... the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision. ... The circumstances in which life may be deliberately ended before it has completed its natural course, and if so in what circumstances, and by whom, raises profoundly sensitive questions about the nature of our society, and its values and standards, on which passionate but contradictory opinions are held. Addressing these life and death issues in relation to life before birth, the circumstances in which a pregnancy may be terminated were decided by Parliament. The abolition of the death penalty following the conviction for murder was, similarly, decided by Parliament. For these purposes Parliament represents the conscience of the nation. Judges, however eminent, do not: our responsibility is to discover the relevant legal principles, and apply the law as we find it. We cannot suspend or dispense with primary legislation." I respectfully agree with him. Do you? [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]
"The circumstances in which life may be deliberately ended before it has completed its natural course" I have difficulty with what the possible definitions or interpretations of 'natural course' could be................. I assume he means when someone is "dead, deceased and not alive any more" (and not just resting)...........but that definition is not sufficient in my opinion..........other options could be: When someone is brain dead / When someone is riddled with cancer / When someone is completely mentally impaired / When someone is so disabled they cannot carry out any function at all / When a machine is the only thing keeping someone going? .......Or simply when they have suffered for ages and finally stopped breathing? AL
Of course I must, anyone with the name John Thomas must have taken a fair amount of fagging as a youth and will understand the needs and wants of people to assist in suicide.
Maybe, but this judgment was delivered by the old Lord Chief, not the new one. As far as I can see, any judge would be obliged to give the same answer if the same question were asked again.
as sad as it is I agree too. the judge has to operate within the legal framework and he has no option. it really is a matter for politicians to decide our laws and our judges dispense them I do think there is a strong case in this day and age for there to be an option for someone who is desperately suffering to decide their future ending if they are able to do so. ironic that doctors have the power to turn life support machines off where there is little chance of recovery after severe trauma but not to be able to act in these desperate cases.......
Its a simple fact. Numerous people have asked for judicial review for ther particular circumstances and Judges examine the facts and come back with the same. The law says no What he is saying is stop bothering us and get parliament to alter the law
Yes, I agree with him. But it is not up to our/your parliamentarians to decide on the laws, their job is to reflect the views of their constituants, who they represent, and not promote their own views, but I fear universally that many politicians have forgotten, or choose to ignore this.
PM, could you explain which, in your opinion, is the prick, Pete1950 or the lord chief justice? Also, can you expand on your statement that, whichever one you are referring to, is “talking shite” because otherwise it would appear that you have not put much thought into your posting
LCJ is whom i am on about, I have just watched my father die in agony because of this legislation while these cocksuckers debate over the small print!
On the question of Law, yes, I do agree with him. However Parliament should move forward on this and legalise assisted suicide as the benefits far outweigh the risks which can, and should, be safeguarded against.
PM, for what they’re worth you have my sympathies about your Dad. My Mum suffered needlessly due to the legislation around care of the dying so I do understand your view. But I think you are attacking the wrong person. The LCJ has no more right than you or I do to dictate if people like your Dad or my Mum should be helped on their way, all he can do is apply the law (which is basically what he is saying). On a general point, only parliament can change the situation as they are the ones who create the laws. Sadly they have done little or nothing to keep legislation in line with advances in medical care. Politicians have trotted out various excuses about the risk of frail and vulnerable people being taken advantage of but I think the reality is that this is a case of politicians thinking the task is difficult so it’s easier to do nothing. Yes, the concerns about the frail and vulnerable are valid but that just means you need to think carefully about any new legislation and how safeguards can be put in place. Another group who are not helping in any way are the social do gooders (I do realise that this is a huge generalisation) and ‘right to life’ groups who seem to apply spurious arguments to prevent any changes to the law that might relieve the suffering of people like PM’s Dad.
As far as I thought Judges can only make rulings on law and go as far as setting precedents in law....key bit being, in law. So from that viewpoint I can only agree with what he said and he is correct if I am right in the way I think these things work. Agree though the law needs changing, I watched my father die too in agony a few years back now and believe me a few times I considered helping him on his way. You wouldn't let an animal suffer in that way and would probably be deemed cruel for doing so. Just seems crazy that when there is nothing left but misery humans have to continue till the bitter end.
The judges apply the law, the parliamentarians (Commons & Lords) propose, debate and amend/add laws with appropriate checks and balances, the public lobby for changes or to keep the status quo. Seems OK to me, I guess in a democracy, we need to accept that our view as individuals may not prevail, which must be very difficult for some of the guys posting on here about the tragic circumstances in which their loved ones passed away. I guess that there is no substitute for reasoned debate on any subject, but I am probably over simplifying things as usual
I don't think laws that impose one persons religious beliefs upon someone else as part of their justification should be allowed. By all means allow someone with religeous beliefs to not choose assisted suicide but for them to use their beliefs to deny that option to others is not acceptable.
If opinion polls are to be believed, a fairly substantial majority of people would be in favour of a change in the law to permit assisted suicide in suitable cases. Which makes it strange that MPs and successive governments are so reluctant to take the step in legislation. Why do they think it would lose them votes?
I would imagine that most "Right to life" campaigners are of a religious/conservative bent. Much the same as the anti-abortion lobby in the states. Why rock the boat? Evolution at its finest.
Society has laws that allow for the doctor to decide whether the life support machine is switched off - thus ending the "life" of an individual with, for example, no brain activity, who can express no volition whatsoever. This same society has laws preventing an individual who is able and willing to give consent to ending his own life and his own suffering? *** How fucking sick is that? I am seriously fucked off with this "society" shit. Anyway, carry on.
