There is currently a news story of a father who has been arrested for murdering his terminally ill son.  Here's the link to the full story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3927093.stm

Do you think he should be tried for murder? 

If he was then found guilty what sort of sentence should he have - life, a few years or instant parole?

In this case, yes, he should be prosecuted.  There is a very fine line we tread when it comes to taking the life of anyone, and there are alot of issues involved. The child was not on life support and was being cared for.  He wasn't in pain, and his needs were being met.  Did his father kill him because the child was uncomfortable, or was the father uncomfortable with the child?????

Personally, I am pro-euthanasia: if somebody is going to die, has a regressive condition but is compos mentis enough to know they don't want to live through the coming trauma, then if they want to die and are able to state this cogently then the state/judiciary should not be prosecuting someone who helps this happen.

But...

This wasn't euthanasia, as there is nothing reported so far to imply that it was the will of the *child* that his life be ended.  The most charitable desciption that can be given is that it was a "mercy killing" (a term I do not like to use, unless I happen to be playing the part of Frank N Furter).  But there must be a trial: a case like this has to go to court to try and determine what the motive behind the action actually was: with the information to hand, there's no way we can pass judgement on what the charge or sentence should be.

Sorry, this is flat out MURDER if you ask me.  Both parents should be put in prison.  I know if that happened here in the US, there wouldn't be any question of whether it was right or wrong.

I disagree: we don't know the full facts, yet.  It might have been murder - let the court decide, don't prejudge.  And I also disagree with the assertion that if it happened in the US there would be no question: what odds on the US equivalent of a "diminished responsibility" plea?

Hmmm....

With this type of controversial subject, surely opposing opinions will be expressed. Let's do our best to respect one another's, even if we disagree.

I agree with philbo in that we shouldn't judge before knowing any and all of the facts of the case once they are made public.

I firmly believe in an individual's right to die under appropriate conditions if a person who is terminally ill and suffering with no possibility of recovering and if that person has specifically arranged the action by way of legal documentation that it would be their wish and/or assign an "agent" (family member, close friend or someone familiar with the individual's values and wishes) to make decisions.

In this case, however, I don't think a 10 year old with a condition that causes mental retardation is capable of making such a decision.


It is difficult to formulate an opinion on this particular case without clear knowledge of the specific circumstances. :-\\

I'm pro-euthanasia in a medical facility, not by non-medical personnel (e.g. parents, husband/wife) because then it becomes either second or third-degree murder.

Tanya

I'm pro-euthanasia in a medical facility, not by non-medical personnel (e.g. parents, husband/wife) because then it becomes either second or third-degree murder.


I agree with you in this subject.

I am all in favor of allowing people to decide to terminate their own life.  But I think it should meet at least the following criteria:

1.  The disease/condition must be terminal.
2.  It must be severely debilitating and/ore painfull.
3.  It must have no chance for a cure.
4.  It must be the choice of the person inflicted with this, not a 3rd party.
5.  The death must be done by qualified medical personel.
6.  It must be witnessed, and the process started with a request by the patient.

For example, Cancer by itself would not count.  But cancer in the terminal stage is different.  The same with a disease like AIDS.  You can now live for over a decade with almost no affects from AIDS.  But when it enters it's final stages, it is cruel for the person infected, as well as dangerous for people who take care of them.  IF THE PERSON WANTS IT, I feel it is their right to end their suffering.

I am *AGAINST* euthenasia.  That is what we do to animals, without their input.  This to me is self-termination.  It must be the choice of the patient and the patient alone.  And it must be a disease that will kill the patient.  This is where Jack "The Dripper" Kevorkian exceeded reason.  He started killing people with long-term non-fatal diseases. 

I'm generally against euthenasia and generally for assisted suicide.  In the case of assisted suicide, I agree with the conditions Mushroom listed.  I would say the disease should be terminal and not subject to remission.  If a person has just had both legs amputed and is extremely depressed, then that's a case in which I wouldn't advocate assisted suicide.
One thing I'm afraid of if assisted suicide becomes legal is insurance companies leaning on folks to choose the suicide solution so the the insurance company can save a buck.  Don't say they wouldn't, 'coz the darn well would!  Insurance companies are effing shameless!

Euthenasia is too slippery a slope.  Once you let others decide one's life is not worth living, where does it end?  People sign "living wills" so they don't end up hooked to life support after they are braindead, and so forth.  It's hard for me to say to a the family of a person who has been comatose for ten years that he or she MUST remain on life support.  It seems in the case of persistent vegetative state that death is merely delayed by technology.

Anyway, there are so many gray areas to this issue it's hard to say for sure either way.

After reading Maxwell's first sentence (and going to check on dictionary.com), I realize that I was confusing the two: I'd always thought of euthanasia to be, in effect, assisted suicide, but realize now I was wrong.  Damn, more flip-flops.

I think I'd agree with pretty much everything Maxwell said, with an addition to his last paragraph: there is a huge grey swathe that cannot be covered by general legislation, so there must be a way of resolving individual cases.  Possibly in the courts, though my feeling is a tribunal system (with both judicial and medical experts on the tribunal) would be the most efficient way.  Though I must admit, I wouldn't like to sit on such a tribunal... too much power over life and death :(

I'm generally against euthenasia and generally for assisted suicide.  In the case of assisted suicide, I agree with the conditions Mushroom listed.  I would say the disease should be terminal and not subject to remission.  If a person has just had both legs amputed and is extremely depressed, then that's a case in which I wouldn't advocate assisted suicide.
One thing I'm afraid of if assisted suicide becomes legal is insurance companies leaning on folks to choose the suicide solution so the the insurance company can save a buck.  Don't say they wouldn't, 'coz the darn well would!  Insurance companies are effing shameless!

Euthenasia is too slippery a slope.  Once you let others decide one's life is not worth living, where does it end?  People sign "living wills" so they don't end up hooked to life support after they are braindead, and so forth.  It's hard for me to say to a the family of a person who has been comatose for ten years that he or she MUST remain on life support.  It seems in the case of persistent vegetative state that death is merely delayed by technology.

Anyway, there are so many gray areas to this issue it's hard to say for sure either way.


Thank you Max for the seperation of the two terms. I would tend to lump Euthanasia with assisted suicide together not realising the implications. Your last paragraph is so eerily true.

A person is dying of cancer, unable to eat, barely able to speak, basically unable to move due to the pain.  A doctor gives the caregiver morphine patches and tells them how many, how often to change them, and how much would "OD" the patient.  The patient tells the caregiver "I want to die".  The caregiver disregards the doctor's orders and places 3 patches on the patient.  Within a few hours, the patient dies.  The extra patches are removed by a medial professional prior to the coroner being called.  Would you consider this "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia"?

Mod to add:  The patient is able to breathe on his own, but is receiving nourishment through an NG tube.


I believe that the patient has the right to end their life even before they reach that point.  I do not believe in allowing somebody to suffer when there is no hope of recovery.  Once they became unable to leave the bed, I feel it is time start planning on the end.

Myself, I prefer a way where the patient themselves administer the final doses.  In this way, there is no question it is their own will.  Otherwise, you run the risk of spouses ending the lives of their partners, and children ending the lives of their parents and claiming it was their choice.  This is also why I would like to see impartial 3rd party witnesses, to ensure that it truely IS the will of the patient.