Saint Keith Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 (edited) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8470572.stm very harsh imo well life technically, but must serve a minimum of 9 years Edited 20 January, 2010 by Saint Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Euthanasia should be decriminalised in every society that claims to be liberal. Obviously individual cases would need to be monitored to prevent abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigShadow Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Bureaucracy triumphs over common sense once more. Isn't there a point where quality of life becomes more important than life itself. Very sad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicestersaint Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Yet another totally mad decision by the criminal justice system - absolutely bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Totally correct decision by the court. The law is the law so what are they supposed to do? Other then that I agree with Joensuu, it should be decriminalized in one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 stupid law,you get thugs who have 60 plus offenses with asbos who terrorize estates, the courts and police seem to let of scott free. and yet they jail this women , a bit of commen sense needed in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 She will probably get a reduced sentence on appeal. It is a hard one because you cannot condone the taking of a life but most fair minded people would say there were mitigating circumstances. Until the law changes though the legal system has done its job. I don't know how the jury were (if indeed they were) directed by the judge but a group of her peers found her guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Just sums this country up and it's self-righteous attitude. I believe she did it for the right reasons, it just beggars belief that people would rather the poor kid suffered for the remainder of his life, until he died from natural causes, or causes associated to his condition. I think they are sick to be honest. Who'd wan't to see someone suffering because their moral and ethical view is that euthanasia is wrong. I suppose those that are against euthanasia think that God knows what's best for someone like this and will decide when they are taken back. We treat Animals with more dignity than we do a fellow human being. Sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red&White Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Just sums this country up and it's self-righteous attitude. I believe she did it for the right reasons, it just beggars belief that people would rather the poor kid suffered for the remainder of his life, until he died from natural causes, or causes associated to his condition. I think they are sick to be honest. Who'd wan't to see someone suffering because their moral and ethical view is that euthanasia is wrong. I suppose those that are against euthanasia think that God knows what's best for someone like this and will decide when they are taken back. We treat Animals with more dignity than we do a fellow human being. Sick. Couldn`t have put it better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Hmmmm... It's a bit different if the "victim" had imparted a desire to be dead, as often happens, but it seems that this was a decision that she made for him. I think there might be a line there, but who knows? I'd certainly never wish to be in her position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Hmmmm... It's a bit different if the "victim" had imparted a desire to be dead, as often happens, but it seems that this was a decision that she made for him. I think there might be a line there, but who knows? I'd certainly never wish to be in her position. Point taken Ponty. However, she is his mother and in the event that he is unable to make that decision for himself then it's only right that the parent(s) should make that decision as to what's best for their children. I think that there is a special bond, almost innate that communicates between parent and sibling - he may not have been able to communicate in a direct sense but I think that as a parent, you know when your son/daughter is suffering and what they are thinking, even if they can't express it.[That will raise a few laughs I know]. A judge/jury just sit there and decide, without any emotion and feeling, they can't possibly empathise or understand that bond when something like this happens. They just make that decision and then go home and I bet it won't pass their mind again, it's as if that person becomes an object, as opposed to a human, just something to have a bit of conjecture with and debate over a glass of Port. Meanwhile, someone, somewhere is suffering an unimaginable pain and us super advanced human race pontificate[a little like me I know:)] as if that person is a bargaining tool for the lawmakers. Maybe we should just sit back and wait for the invisible man in the sky[God] to decide when it's time for those afflicted to leave this earth.....yeah right! Crikey, missing the match! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints11 Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Mr Inglis suffered brain damage when he fell out of an ambulance in July 2007. Slighlty ironic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Why Heroin? Surely a sledge hammer would be quicker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 Don't normally get precious about which forum its on, but a couple of **** posts for something in the lounge on an emotional subject. Not defending the Mum, but that would have been the hardest thing she ever did and as she said, she did it out of love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint boggy Posted 20 January, 2010 Share Posted 20 January, 2010 she did do it out of love for her son..... the lad COULDN'T have expressed a wish to die as his injuries were sudden,rather than a progressive condition such as Motor Neurone, but i do believe that she did it with her son's wellbeing in mind. She said herself that he would not want to have lived like that, and who in their right mind WOULD to be fair??? i believe, in situations like this, that the family should have overall say in what happens to their loved ones. There are very few who would make the decision for selfish reasons, so i really don't see a problem with legalising euthanasia. Like the general public have been saying for many years, we put animals to sleep when we know they are suffering or have no chance of recovery, so why the hell don't we do it to people?? It will save the families of the afflicted a lot of worry and heartache, knowing that their loved ones don't want to live anymore but that they are unable to help them end the suffering..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now