New technology=right to die?

[thir]

I think it's a profound shame for the man concerned that he should be forced to seek a court ruling through the High Court, and eventually through the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court, just to find out what the law is.

Surely the question has been raised often enough by now for politicians to realise that this question is being asked more and more frequently as modern medicine enables people to survive things that would have killed them before, and to keep them alive for longer. For some it is a living hell. Whatever the courts say ... and I suggest, even before they say it ... Parliament should make the law perfectly clear so that everyone can know if doctors are allowed to terminate lives lawfully or not.

What the doctors will make of any such powers remains to be seen, as will the way doctors will be regarded by their patients.

The thing is, there is no law right now that says that assited suicide is legal, they are slithering out of taking the decision for fear of the fundamentalist Christians - who will try to impose their ideas on other people as always! I do not know what legal grounds they will use for this case, or have used up to now, it would be very intereting indeed to find out if possible. Possibly they are going for a Human Rights Act to argue for assisted suicide, leaving it to the courts to find a law against that. But if this case is won, I am sure it will put the discussion about AS on the agenda again. It is only a matter of time, but, as you say, a living hell for the people who have wait and wait and fight it out this way.

[denuseri]

The thing is, there is no law right now that says that assited suicide is legal, they are slithering out of taking the decision for fear of the fundamentalist Christians -

Most all Christian sects ( however opposed they may be to suicide in and of itself ) are also opposed to maintaining one's life beyond normal measures via what is termed as artificial and or heroic means. IE: if a machine is required to keep you alive beyond a certain point and one's quality of life is grossly affected due too such a condition (as in cases where one is determined to be brain dead etc) then its perfectly acceptable to discontinue such means of preserving the body unnaturally and let the patient die.

[thir]

Most all Christian sects ( however opposed they may be to suicide in and of itself ) are also opposed to maintaining one's life beyond normal measures via what is termed as artificial and or heroic means. IE: if a machine is required to keep you alive beyond a certain point and one's quality of life is grossly affected due too such a condition (as in cases where one is determined to be brain dead etc) then its perfectly acceptable to discontinue such means of preserving the body unnaturally and let the patient die.

I am not talking about most Christian sects, but the core of fundi Christians who have views on other people's behalf, and will do what they can to enforce them. Some of them (bishops) are in the House of Lords - automtically! - and can vote on many of these issues, but they cannot loose an election. What a system!

This is UK I am talking about, of course. They are Church of England, no other religious group has this kind of influence, including Catholics.

They are the ones who oppose the laws of assisted suicide, as they did laws of more religious freedom, because they thought it would limit the power of Church of England privileges.