I agree that the law of the land needs to be upheld. I may not agree with all of them, or the sentencing guidelines for some offences, but this is the democracy we live in. Like PM, I watched my mothers extremely miserable and degrading last few days. If she was an animal she would've been put to sleep and retained what dignity she had left. However, as she was an intelligent, educated, rational person, her wishes could not be carried out due to the law. Her only request that was agreed on, was that no attempt would be made to resuscitate her. Sometimes the law is an ass.
Does the way our laws often work, I.e. by precedent (sp?), not mean a trial could be held, and if the verdict in relation to the suicide act came out favourably for the (brave/reckless) professional who was assisting then a precedent would be set that could be used in future trials? good job our politicians are here to act out the will of the people, and not just meglomanic greedy so-and-sos desperately clinging on to every vote on her/his side of the political divide. Or else we would see them ducking thorny issues that may be vote losers...
seeing as the bloke you quoted is now just laying around spending his tax payer funded super pension I think you should search your soul before spouting anymore of his outdated views. His schooling and further education establishment give enough clues about him for ninety nine percent of us to ignore the dear chap. Even the new one has an inbred family hIstory with a name of a cock. Upper class families that should been sent over the top in ww1 and shot instead of normal people.
A bit off track . I do not see why assisted ending of life ( I don't like the word suicide) is not allowed. In Switzerland they have that clinic ? It's ok chaps like him spouting stuff but .. I bet if his pet dog was suffering ?? He would take it to the vets and have it put down . The hardest time in my life was My Grandfather going into hospital. He was chatting away and fine
Define 'normal people'. That load of old bollocks you just spat out is unlikely to mark you out as a 'normal' person, so maybe it's you that should be shot...
Sorry fell asleep ! My grandad entered hospital walking talking but had some fluid on his lungs. He caught MRSA in hospital 3 days later was reduced to hardly able to say a thing and all his organs packing up. I was taken aside to be told he was dying ( MRSA got him) I was furious. They took his drip away and suddenly moved him to another ward In a side room. At no point was I told he'd been put on "pathway" to die. My poor grandad was so thirsty but he was not allowed water or a drip. I had to try and get him to suck on a sponge. They withdrew food and water .. My Grandfather was a big chap and liked his food and a pint or two. He was saying he was so so thirsty . I asked please could they make him comfy. I did not know that " pathway" is they remove all fluids and food and basically wait for you to die!!! My Grandfather the next day couldn't move or talk . I did not know about the Pathway system it was not explained to me. I say and wAtched my Grandad go from coherent eating drinking and joking. With in 3days he had MRSA from filthy hospital and they withdrew every thing even water from him . Do imagine going into hospital feeling unwell but walking talking eating . Then catching MRSA and it attacking you and it's decided oh well your 82 so no point in giving you treatment. We will just remove your basic needs of food and water and you slowly die of dehydration. No food or water or drip for 4 days!! Until your kidneys fail and you die. How is this humane? If I had a dog and I took away its food and water so it collapsed and died I'd be in court fast as and deemed cruel. So how the hell is doing that to the elderly right? At the time I was not told of the Pathway system .. If I'd have known I'd have fought it. I can't imaging laying there for 4 days devoid of a drink of water or food He fought for days until he died. But watching my Grandfather go in right as rain.. Just fluid on his lungs again. To catching MRSA .. And being left to die like that. Funny at the time I was not told about the way people are left / sped up death. I don't understand that we can choose to have a dog put to sleep . Yet legally you can take away food and water from a human so there organs shit down faster and they die! It takes days. So I really feel that you can choose to die with dignity. Or if you were left in a vegetive state if you have written DNR or don't let me suffer. Then you should be able to choose or state that's your choice. It's wrong all wrong . Most hospitals have withdrawn "Pathway" now .. I have never felt so angry and helpless in my entire life .. " someone" made the choice to move my Grandad and made a choice not to treat him for MRSA aggressively . Instead someone said oh well he's 82 move him to pathway wards and withdraw food water .. I just recall how thirsty he was and how frustrated he got not being allowed a drink of water! By withdrawing water his kidneys went into overdrive and shut down . Is that right? Is that humane ? Would you do that to your dog? No .... People need a right to choose. He was a very proud big strong man .. He got no dignity at all. Also hmm funny the death certificate did not say he caught MRSA in hospital and that killed him either ! Wonder why!!?
Well yes, someone could volunteer to help a suffering patient by putting them out of their misery, and wait to be prosecuted. At trial they might be acquitted by a sympathetic jury or they might not. Would you be willing to take that risk? But in any event a jury acquittal in one case is not a precedent in another case. A conviction for murder or manslaughter, even in a mercy killing, would be sure to result in a custodial sentence though maybe a short one. If such a case was appealed to the court of appeal, the judgment would surely be just the same as in post #1. Judges cannot and will not over-rule acts of parliament.
Precedents mean rulings on points of law in judgments made by senior judges (High Court and above). There are no precedents on points of fact, points of valuation, jury verdicts, or decisions of inferior courts. The law seeks to be consistent and predictable, hence precedents are generally followed. Having said that, some rulings which are not strictly precedents are pretty persuasive, since no judge wants to give a ruling contradicting a previous ruling unless there is a very good reason. On the other hand some precedents which are strictly binding in theory can nevertheless be evaded e.g. by holding that the present case can be distinguished from the precedent case. There are whole textbooks about this stuff - will that do for a summary?
Surely points of law affect outcomes, otherwise what is the point. So a precedent is effectively guidance relating to how the judiciary interprets the laws passed by parliament with the intention of increasing clarity when that law is applied to a specific set of circumstances (as in the details of the case upon which the precedent is based)? A wacky judgement is not therefore, and never can be, a precedent; or can it, until some higher court decides otherwise ?
Let me try a hypothetical example. Say a party in a trial seeks to adduce some evidence which the other party argues is inadmissible (say, because it was allegedly obtained illegally). The judge has to consider the pros and cons and give a ruling on the point of law re admissibility. There might be an act of parliament about the admissibility or otherwise of certain evidence, or there might be a precedent judgment of a superior court on the point, in which case the judge will apply the law to the case before him. Occasionally there may be nothing specific to these particular circumstances, in which event the judge has to decide the point by following general principles of justice and reasoning. Whatever he decides might have a crucial effect on the outcome of the case. On the other hand that bit of evidence might be irrelevant, or superfluous, or not be believed by the jury - in which case the judge's ruling turns out to have made no difference to the outcome. I'm not sure what you mean by wacky. Judgments of a novel, unusual and surprising nature may well be appealed up the hierarchy of courts until they are either confirmed or reversed; in either case this might create a new precedent.
