Voluntary euthanasia for lifers?

**English assassin** · 09-06-2006, 11:57

I was a little surprised that the story about Ian Huntley's attempted suicide in prison didn't hit the Backroom,

Personally I had little more insightful to add other than that I would disapprove of anyone gloating over the death (or attempted suicide) of another, but on the other hand I really wasn't going to lose any sleep if Huntley didn't recover. Which didn't seem worth saying.

The trouble with letting him kill himself, still more with euthanasia, is you are complict in the act. No one is in any meaningful moral sense responsible if I go done the chemists and scarf up a bottle of paracetamol, but a lifer lives in a very controlled environment and it ought to be possible to make that enviromment basically suicide proof. Failure to do so DOES make you in a sense responsible for the suicide.

Even if we assume that we would extend euthenasia to the terminally ill and in pain (it certainly seems odd that Huntley would be allowed to end his existence as he chose but not someone who was old and in great pain), i am not sure I would want society to be engaged with this sort of issue for people like this (Huntley I mean, not the sick). Even leaving aside issues of coercion (if you were his jailor could you resist making him miserable in the hope he'd take the pills?) there are those who would use it to lead us all a merry dance. Ian Brady has spent forty years attempting to manipulate his vicitims families, the media, and anyone who will listen, into, well, I don't pretend to understand the motivatioins of a true psychopath, but some sort of sympathy for poor Ian seems to be a small part of it. I guess he likes to hurt and its the only way he has left. Can you imagine all the "I want to die...I'm going to die,...next month....oops I've changed my mind.....no I'm going to do it now...etc etc he would try to lead us through. Its bad enough with this bloody hunger strike hes on, or not on, or on again.

IMHO the right way to deal with these people is to put them in a confined but not uncomfortable enviroment and forget they ever existed. Minimal engagement on a material and a moral level. They are a contaminant, and the less society handles them the better.

My view.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 09-06-2006, 12:08

Originally Posted by English assassin

Personally I had little more insightful to add other than that I would disapprove of anyone gloating over the death (or attempted suicide) of another, but on the other hand I really wasn't going to lose any sleep if Huntley didn't recover. Which didn't seem worth saying.

The trouble with letting him kill himself, still more with euthanasia, is you are complict in the act. No one is in any meaningful moral sense responsible if I go done the chemists and scarf up a bottle of paracetamol, but a lifer lives in a very controlled environment and it ought to be possible to make that enviromment basically suicide proof. Failure to do so DOES make you in a sense responsible for the suicide.

Even if we assume that we would extend euthenasia to the terminally ill and in pain (it certainly seems odd that Huntley would be allowed to end his existence as he chose but not someone who was old and in great pain), i am not sure I would want society to be engaged with this sort of issue for people like this (Huntley I mean, not the sick). Even leaving aside issues of coercion (if you were his jailor could you resist making him miserable in the hope he'd take the pills?) there are those who would use it to lead us all a merry dance. Ian Brady has spent forty years attempting to manipulate his vicitims families, the media, and anyone who will listen, into, well, I don't pretend to understand the motivatioins of a true psychopath, but some sort of sympathy for poor Ian seems to be a small part of it. I guess he likes to hurt and its the only way he has left. Can you imagine all the "I want to die...I'm going to die,...next month....oops I've changed my mind.....no I'm going to do it now...etc etc he would try to lead us through. Its bad enough with this bloody hunger strike hes on, or not on, or on again.

IMHO the right way to deal with these people is to put them in a confined but not uncomfortable enviroment and forget they ever existed. Minimal engagement on a material and a moral level. They are a contaminant, and the less society handles them the better.

My view.

Very well argued, thank you.

**InsaneApache** · 09-06-2006, 12:16

The bastard should rot in gaol for the rest of his life. No euthenasia, no allowed suicide, no parole.

**macsen rufus** · 09-06-2006, 12:31

Yes, tough issue. My position generally: I'm in favour of voluntary euthanasia, in that I believe if someone finds their life unbearable they should have the option of a quick easy way out to end suffering. I have doubts about how to implement that given the incidence of impatient heirs etc etc! I totally abhor common current practice of suspending food and water. Totally barbaric and the medical profession should be ashamed of themselves if they think it's unethical to give a swift injection on demand yet ethical to starve someone to death.

I also do not like the death penalty as there is no going back. Too often miscarriages of justice crop up years after the event. A posthumous pardon just doesn't cut the mustard, in my eyes. At least years of false imprisonment can be compensated for (however inadequately), but the executed innocent cannot be resurrected. If the justice system was 100% accurate I would have to rethink my position, but for now, that's why I oppse the death penalty. To my eyes the risk of killing an innocent outweighs the risk of not killing the guilty - protecting the innocent is the higher cause (which is why we punish murderers in the first place).

I also believe that imprisonment entails loss of freedom as the element of punishment, and should not involve cruel and brutalising treatment of those inside. All attempts at reforming the character of prisoners should be taken.

So given this framework (if you're still with me), I would argue that Huntley does not have the right to commit suicide, as that is part of the freedom taken from him by incarceration. Personally, I too wouldn't shed a tear, but recognise that as an emotional rather than an ethical impulse on my part.

Finally, for EA - up to you if you want to top yourself, but can I advise NEVER do it with paracetamol, that is one of the worst ways imaginable to go.

**English assassin** · 09-06-2006, 12:37

Finally, for EA - up to you if you want to top yourself, but can I advise NEVER do it with paracetamol, that is one of the worst ways imaginable to go.

Many thanks. Back to plain B then, sexual exhaustion with Rachel Stephens.

**edyzmedieval** · 09-06-2006, 12:40

Originally Posted by English assassin

Many thanks. Back to plain B then, sexual exhaustion with Rachel Stephens.

I thought death was supposed to be unpleasurable...

Oh, lay of the Viagra.

**yesdachi** · 09-06-2006, 14:05

Anyone (adult, not crazy) that wants to take their life should be able to.
Just try not to make a mess, someone will have to pick up after you.

**rory_20_uk** · 09-06-2006, 23:19

In cases where the guilt of the individual is beyond doubt (there are a few of them), I think that they should be either used for medical research, or failing that organ donorship.

The fact that money is wasted on looking after him is an indefensible drain on the public purse.

Starving people to death?

Are these the people that don't want to eat? Many elderly patients have no drive to eat or drink - their brain is that gone. They are not suffering in food and drink bieng witheld, and in fact are far more agitated when they are forced to eat and drink.

I agree that the big flaw with capital punishment is cases where there is doubt. Capital punishment should be on the books, but only used in a select group of people.