I give the 'Cocklecarrots' a hard time on this blog but sometimes I think it must be one of the hardest jobs in the world - to sit in judgment over your fellow men and women and take decisions of momentous importance to the parties concerned and to society as a whole. For the last few days I have been unable to shake out of my head the truly appalling case of Mr. Tony Nicklinson who suffers with what is known in the jargon as 'locked-in syndrome'. Even the thought of it makes me shudder! Seven years ago Mr.Nicklinson, who is now 57 and married with two grown-up daughters, suffered a stroke which has left him with no ability to move or speak. He communicates via a computer. His only wish is to die - and who can blame him? And yet . . . and yet . . .
Mr. Nicklinson wants the law to be changed so that a doctor can despatch him quickly and relatively painlessly. Another appellant, known only as 'Martin', in a similar condition wanted the court to allow his relatives to assist him to visit Switzerland where euthanasia is permitted without fear of the law acting against them after the event. Both requests were turned down by the three judges of the High Court. The reasons for doing so are many and obvious and I will not rehearse them here but I was pleased and slightly surprised to read Lord Justice Toulsen's additional argument to the effect that such a radical change in the law was above and beyond the powers of the High Court and its judges. One doesn't expect too much in the way of humility from your average 'Cocklecarrot' but Toulsen was entirely right. It is not for judges to make such decisions but only our elected representatives in parliament. Yes, yes, I know, but they're all we have in the democratic system under which we all live, and at least we can toss the rascals out from time to time which is more than we can do to the 'Cocklecarrots'.
In the meantime, helplessly and hopelessly, one can only spare a thought for Mr. Nicklinson and 'Martin' and their respective families in the hellish predicament in which they find themselves. At moments like this I wish there was a God I could believe in and pray to for divine intercession - but there ain't! Sometimes life's a bitch - and then it rains!
"The reasons for doing so are many and obvious ...": I'd like to think that the reasons are to do with the law. They might therefore be few and non-obvious, at least to the layman.
Posted by: dearieme | Saturday, 18 August 2012 at 12:00
They may, or may not, have something to do with the law, but I like to think they have more to do with morality which should, of course, be reflected in the law.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 18 August 2012 at 13:47
No, the judges are right to avoid moralising and to throw the question back to us and the bums we vote for.
Posted by: dearieme | Saturday, 18 August 2012 at 20:05
I think we're at slight cross purposes. Yes, the law should reflect society's morality and it is the business of the "bums" to draft laws accordingly on our behalf. Thereafter it is the judges' job to interpret them. To be fair, this case is a prime example of the hideous complexity of deciding on moral/legal matters and for once I have some pity for the "bums".
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 18 August 2012 at 22:11
I think this is a decision to be made by the holder of the body and nobody else.
Things get complicated when people become involved.
Posted by: Andra | Monday, 20 August 2012 at 00:35
In this case, Andra, the menconcerned have made their wishes perfectly clear but because of their condition they are unable to carry out the action. To my mind, the only people who can act in such a situation are their loved ones - if they can steel themselves to do it. However, it will then be necessary for them to go before a judge and jury and justify what they did. As I said above, in these two cases I doubt very much if any of them would spend even an hour in jail.
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 20 August 2012 at 08:41