Do You Think Someone Should Be Prosecuted For Euthenising A Loved One?

[Truthteller88]

This Q assumes that the loved one has requested this help.

[andy-hughes]

That is far too complex a question for a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer, so I will go with - maybe.

[Peter Pedant]

yes or everyone would do it

[Tilly2]

A very hesitant...possibly not, from me.

[fender62]

no they should not be prosecuted, if said person is terminal and in great agony and tired of morphine induced semi coma.

[horselady]

No.

[dunnitall]

No they shouldn't if requested by the sufferer. However the law needs to be changed IMO but never will. We would not let an animal suffer like we do our loved ones. This world is cruel in many ways but those in powers never take heed. Soddin law means hell for some....but according to the 'laws of the land' that's fine...they don't hold it to their conscience...

[jim360]

I think each such case should be investigated thoroughly, but prosecuted? Only if you can establish reasonable doubt over the part where "the loved one has requested this". If that's in doubt, prosecute. If not, then I don't see it as in the public interest to put someone on trial who can hardly be labelled a threat to society if they did what they did out of love.

[pixie374]

It needs to be more than "requesting". It depends...and I think should be agreed by professionals too. Although, even then, they don't always see things how they are.

[woofgang]

I agree with Jim. As things stand (and where anybody finds out) there must be some kind of legal process to determine what actually happened. If there is any doubt, then the issue must go to law. I don’t think many (any?) people have actually been found guilty though of ending the suffering of a loved one? Does anyone know?

[pixie374]

I think it's too late to investigate afterwards. It obviously does happen on a daily basis, but as far as I know, the only people prosecuted are those who have made it public.

[scooping]

The thing I've never understood about this conversation is that, bare with me, Hitler and Eva Braun, Goering et al ended their lives with cyanide pills that, reportedly, worked within three seconds. Now we have the deadful circumstance of spouses facing prison for aiding their loved one's death and, otherwise, a potentially expensive and traumatic trip to Dignitas. If people wish to take their own lives can they not have access to pills that were available during World War Two and still available, I am told, to the military of many countries today?

[woofgang]

cyanide is a nasty way to die. The existence of meds that can end a life easily is not the issue.

[jim360]

I guess it helps if you want to get access to something, when you are the ultimate arbiter of life and death in a country you've ruled with an iron hand for a decade.

[MallyJ]

I want someone to send me off if I can't do it myself....I am speaking solely for myself but there are a whole variety of ailments I really do not want to live with or general decay that does not allow me to take care of my personal needs....so I think that, provided one can tell everyne in advance of ones wishes then no a person should not be prosecuted for helping me on my way..assuming I can't sort it out myself. BUT that is my wish...

[Old_Geezer]

The facility should be available officially in a controlled environment. Any secret private action has to be investigated. It isn't something that should be put on the shoulders of a loved one in the first place.

[david small]

I agree with old_geezer.

[DaisyNonna]

How many shades of grey are there?

[woofgang]

OG what about people who want to die at home or are too ill to be moved?

[ummmm]

When my dad was dying he had loads of morphine in his house. I asked the nurses how often he was allowed it and they said as often as he wanted. At this point he was still mobile so he could have took an overdose if he wanted.

[TWR]

No.