Blog powered by Typepad

« A case of severe PBS, doctor | Main | We've got the wrong Obama in the White House »

Saturday, 18 August 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"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.

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.

No, the judges are right to avoid moralising and to throw the question back to us and the bums we vote for.

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".

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.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.