To think that the tony nicklinson case just highlights the fact that......hat ....

[seeker]

.....the Christian lobby still carries too much weight in legislation?

Couldn't agree more.

I don't think this case has anything to do with the religious lobbyists:
this case was about allowing the Doctors (and nurses, I believe) being give the Right to end life* without prosecution. There are issues with a conflict in interest with the Hippocratic Oath.

There was a particular point made at Court that as the two people bringing the case are able to demonstrate cognitive awareness - beyond autonomic response - that they are alive beyond the vegetative state, and to is all therefore still within the bounds of illegality i.e. Suicide is illegal in the Uk

Actually - make that primarily not to do with the religious lobbyists.

Judaism, Islam and Buddhism would also say the same as Christianity

Suicide is illegal??

Yes, Blackberry.

If you do not succeed, you may, in theory be prosecuted.

Not many - if any - are.

joyful that's what I thought too ... Read it here on MN a while back

The court. could not have made a different judgement under current legislation. Current legislation is not changed to tally with the wishes of the majority of the people because of the strong religious lobby in the house of Lords.

Sucide isn't illegal - that was changed in the 60s, but it's illegal to kill someone, that's the bit people miss with assisted suicide cases, you're asking someone to kill someone else and not be prosecuted.

Suicide hasn't been illegal since the 60s. The issue here is that with locked-in syndrome, someone would actually have to administer the lethal dose to you: that is what is illegal.

I agree that there are difficulties surrounding the hypocritical oath, but in debates I've heard on the issue this has hardly been mentioned. The most trotted-out argument is the 'thin edge of the wedge argument': i.e., being this in and before long everyone will be guilt-tripping their granny into offing herself because she's a bit of a nuisance. Personally, I find this argument rather fatuous and patronising.

I've not heard all that much discussion of the inate sanctity of life in this debate. I think it's more to do with scare-mongering than religious views.

Suicide is not illegal in the UK.

Passive euthanasia (withholding/withdrawal of treatment) is not illegal, so for example a doctor could switch off a respirator and then stand by while the patient died.

Refusal of treatment by competent adults is not illegal even when the treatement could be life-saving.

Assisted suicide (i.e. providing someone with the means to die while they carry out the act) is (borderline) illegal but rarely prosecuted.

Active euthanasia (actually killing someone by means, for example, of a lethal injection) is illegal.

Mrs B's request for passive euthanasia was upheld by the courts and her doctors were criticised for ignoring her earlier requests, Nicklinson is asking for active euthanasia which is, currently, illegal but pressure is mounting for Parliament to reconsider the law.

Goodness; my second paragraph was really garbled.

I stand corrected on the point of Law.

I think it is because I got it mixed up with the Mental Health Acts where you can be Committed - by law - for committing certain acts of self harm.

Yes, under the Mental Health Act you can be involuntarily committed if you are thinking of harming yourself or others however there are stict regulations (amount of time you can be held, two doctors must concur, etc. can't quite remember the details).

However there is a difference between a person who is thinking of committing suicide because of a mental illness, e.g. depression and a person who is thinking of committing suicide because they no longer want to live because, for example, they have a very painful, terminal disease. Chances are the latter would not be committed.