Australian quadriplegic granted right to starve to death

[LizzyBean]

(CNN) -- An Australian high court ruled Friday that a quadriplegic man has the right to refuse food and water and can be allowed to die, a rare legal finding that some see as a major victory for right-to-die campaigners.

Nitschke noted that Rossiter's case is significant because his mind is fully functional.

Story here.

[lord_feldon]

So death panels are in vogue in Australia?

[snopes]

That's what happens under AustraliobamaCare.

[Bettie Page Turner]

I would say that he always had the right, but it has just now been legally recognized.

[Rebochan]

Eeek...while I'm glad he has the right to die now, what a way to go.

[Artemis]

Yeah, couldn't they give him an overdose of morphine or something?

[Rebochan]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Yeah, couldn't they give him an overdose of morphine or something?

From the way other right-to-die advocates are talking in the article, this is the only legal way for him to do this - anything else would hold those assisting him to be criminally responsible.

[LizzyBean]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Yeah, couldn't they give him an overdose of morphine or something?

According to the article that would qualify as assisted suicide, which carries a life sentance. And since this man can't move and take his own life, this is the only option the poor man has.

I'm glad that he has been giving the "right" to die, but what a horrible way to go.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by LizzyBean

According to the article that would qualify as assisted suicide, which carries a life sentance.

Is that a mandatory life sentence? If so, that is a bit ridiculous, since several territories don't appear to have mandatory life sentences for murder. It would be absolutely ridiculous to be punished more harshly for killing someone who asked you to than for killing someone who didn't want to be killed.

[Christie]

Originally Posted by geminilee

It would be absolutely ridiculous to be punished more harshly for killing someone who asked you to than for killing someone who didn't want to be killed.

Maybe. But anyone who claims they are killing someone because they asked them to better have a helluva lot of documentation to back that up. That is one slippery slope.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Christie

Maybe. But anyone who claims they are killing someone because they asked them to better have a helluva lot of documentation to back that up. That is one slippery slope.

Umm... ok. Did I somehow give the impression that I was suggesting that people just be able to walk up, kill a random stranger, claim they asked them to, and get a lesser punishment?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Bettie Page Turner

I would say that he always had the right, but it has just now been legally recognized.

Semantics, I'm afraid. You may be correct, but there is no functional value of that viewpoint. Another problem is: how do we know which rights are natural? Women have the right to terminate their pregnancies...but fetuses have the right to live to be born... Gays have the right to marry...but heteros have the right to define marriage... I far prefer the interpretation of rights as a social construct, like cultures, languages, religions, tribes, and nations: they aren't intrinsic, but something we rather make up as we go along.

Another interesting problem is that of historical change. We cannot know, today, what rights will be considered fundamental a century or two from now. 200 years ago, owning a slave was a fundamental right; 200 years in the future, killing an animal for meat might be illegal, and our descendants will look at us with the same disgust as we look at slave-owners. If rights are natural, it seems that they ought to be more obviously discernible, and less subject to confusion.

Finally, perhaps rights are absolute, natural, intrinsic, and maybe even bestowed by an almighty God. But since we don't know this, then the process of legal recognition is all we have to work with. It is up to us to fight for the legal recognition of as many good rights as we can -- and, perhaps, to fight against the legal recognition of a few bad ones.

Silas

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Bettie Page Turner

I would say that he always had the right, but it has just now been legally recognized.

Not if they had the right to insert a feeding tube and hydration lines, he didn't.

[LizzyBean]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Not if they had the right to insert a feeding tube and hydration lines, he didn't.

Which, because of this, they no longer do. He has asked the home to no longer do these things, and all liability against them for his death has been lifted.

Umm... ok. Did I somehow give the impression that I was suggesting that people just be able to walk up, kill a random stranger, claim they asked them to, and get a lesser punishment?

I think what Christie was trying to say was that with assisted suicide you'd better make damn sure that you have all of the documentation to prove it's what the person wanted. Especially if we're talking someone with limited mental capacities, like so many assisted suicides seem to be. If grandma dies because she had dementia, and you say she wanted assisted suicide and can't prove it? Well that's going to take some explaining.

This man is different. He has his full faculties and is asking for this, which is the only way he can die of his own choosing.

Australian law gives patients the right to refuse life-saving treatment, but helping someone commit suicide is a crime that can carry a life prison sentence.

So it doesn't look like it's automatic, but I think it would be a deterrent.

[Salamander]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Umm... ok. Did I somehow give the impression that I was suggesting that people just be able to walk up, kill a random stranger, claim they asked them to, and get a lesser punishment?

It wouldn't be a random stranger... it might be a sibling, child or partner wanting to grab inheritance or some other similar motivation.

[Christie]

Originally Posted by Salamander

It wouldn't be a random stranger... it might be a sibling, child or partner wanting to grab inheritance or some other similar motivation.

Exactly. And it might even be someone who genuinely believes they are "doing the right thing" for the best of all possible reasons for someone they love. Doesn't make it right though.

Originally Posted by LizzyBean

I think what Christie was trying to say was that with assisted suicide you'd better make damn sure that you have all of the documentation to prove it's what the person wanted. Especially if we're talking someone with limited mental capacities, like so many assisted suicides seem to be. If grandma dies because she had dementia, and you say she wanted assisted suicide and can't prove it? Well that's going to take some explaining.

This is what I mean when I am talking about a slippery slope. Just because you (general you) think a loved one's life is no longer worth living that doesn't mean you have the right to make that decision for them. Especially if their death makes life easier for you - I know that for most people that wouldn't be the motivation but it certainly would be for some. If you really feel so strongly about the suffering of your loved one that you are prepared to kill them then you need to be prepared to face the legal consequences of murder. Because that's what you've done even if you mean well.

[Bettie Page Turner]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Not if they had the right to insert a feeding tube and hydration lines, he didn't.

If he refused the invasive medical procedures, they would not have the right.

[MidgardDragon]

I'm glad for him. If he wants to take his own life that should be his choice. It's sad that he can't do it quickly and painlessly due to asinine laws, but at least he's been given the "right" even if he's not going to get to go with the dignity he deserves.

[LizzyBean]

Originally Posted by Christie

This is what I mean when I am talking about a slippery slope. Just because you (general you) think a loved one's life is no longer worth living that doesn't mean you have the right to make that decision for them. Especially if their death makes life easier for you - I know that for most people that wouldn't be the motivation but it certainly would be for some. If you really feel so strongly about the suffering of your loved one that you are prepared to kill them then you need to be prepared to face the legal consequences of murder. Because that's what you've done even if you mean well.

That's the one thing that worries me. There are people who really do want to die because there are no other options and turn to their family and loved one s for help.

Then there's those people, who like you pointed out, simply want Great Aunt Tilly out of the way.

That's the importance of living wills and making your wishes known before anything happens. This man choose to do this for himself because he has no life. If he could he would take his own life but he can't, so he's doing the only thing he can.

I think that's the main difference, and what causes the issues that lead to the slippery slopes.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Christie

This is what I mean when I am talking about a slippery slope. Just because you (general you) think a loved one's life is no longer worth living that doesn't mean you have the right to make that decision for them.

The person wouldn't have asked for it, then would they?

I just am not sure how you jumped from "killing someone who has asked to be killed should not be punished more harshly than killing someone who doesn't want to die" to "no proof is required other than the persons word that the deceased asked to die". Mine may be a slightly slippery slope, but that was one huge leap to conclusions.

If you really feel so strongly about the suffering of your loved one that you are prepared to kill them then you need to be prepared to face the legal consequences of murder. Because that's what you've done even if you mean well.

Even if they have asked for it? If I had to, if my father told me tomorrow that he was suffering and couldn't take it anymore, and wanted me to help him die, I would, and deal with the jail time. Better that than torture someone by forcing them to go through what would be animal cruelty if we did it to a dog. But people are more important than dogs, and so I guess their suffering is somehow less cruel.