A person due to peg out from, say, terminal cancer could choose become a suicide bomber infiltrating a Parliamentary Labour Party cocktail party.

It would be inappropriate to say whether this would be considered a good thing or a bad thing.

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000359.htm

She was burned in a domestic accident in Gaza and was receiving regular hospital treatment in Israel prior to being persuaded to wear some explosives for her next visit so that she could blow herself to bits and kill and maim a few of the Zionist oppressors working as doctors, nurses and orderlies.

Why should people be forced to remain alive and use up the Earth’s resources if they don’t want to. So often its painted as a “selfish” desire – to want out.

Perfect candidate as the executioner in chief!

The other difference of course is that whereas Kay Gilderdale was actively looking after her daughter at home, Frances Inglis had been prohibited from seeing her son due to a previous court appearance (in 2003 if memory serves me right) and he was cared for in a hospice/carehome …

Lynn has been severely disabled, with a condition that effectively had further deteriorated her fundamental physical condition to the extent where even if the original disability was now miraculously cured, she would not have been able to resume a fit and active life.

Thomas on the other hand had become disabled as a result of a self-initiated jump from an ambulance which had left him paralysed and severely brain damaged unable to communicate and being kept alive only by modern medicinal practise.

To equate these two cases is disingenuous to say the least. Further it only serves to further murky the waters as it could be claimed that only provided the subject can still communicate in a manner that satisfies us, the general public, that they have made their wishes clear will these wishes be taken into consideration; otherwise we will do their thinking for them.

If there is one thing that the Kay Gilderdale case has managed to highlight is that Keir Starmer QC,the Director of Prosecutions, is waging a very personal campaign on this issue. Kay Gilderdale had already, at a previous court appearance in July pleaded guilty to a charge of assisting suicide. Yet despite this he still attempted to gain a conviction of attempted murder.

When we have highly senior members of the judiciary playing political football with these highly vulnerable individuals who are already dealing with a level of pain and grief to an extent few of us can enter into I am further convinced that we need no change in the law itself.

What we need is a case on case decision. However I do not believe that a public trial is necessarily the way forward in that; nor do I think that it is necessarily the Prosecution Service that should determine the issue on the case on case basis. This is never a matter of in the public interest as we are not talking about people who are likely to go out and repeat offending; therefore the issue of public safety does not come up.

I do not think that the law has any place in these highly individual cases. Maybe the way forward would be for a jury of peers, in the purest sense … that is individuals who are of similar age, interests, gender etcetera who could reach a consensus on whether or not euthanasia is indeed reasonable in any given case.

Okay people may well want to die, but how many of those who have killed themselves, just before dying thought, “STOP”.