Euthanasia, Murder and Ethics.

[TeePee]

There is a trial currently going on in Bristol in which a woman is being tried for the Murder of her ex-lover. The accusation is that she attacked him, grievously injured him, and he then decided that he could no longer live with the injuries and ended his life at a Euthanasia clinic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...friend-ending/

This raises, for me, a serious ethics question.

I'm a believer in the right to self-terminate. This includes the right of people with and without terminal diseases, and even for those with mental illness for whom recovery is improbable. But in this case, is it murder? Certainly, if the prosecutions description of events is true, there is a case to answer to. Attempted murder? GBH? Assault? The injuries inflicted were shockingly severe, but the actual loss of life here is through the choice of the victim. Is this really murder?

[Phage]

Saw this on the news. Attempted murder is how I read it. Plus GBH.

[Lucio]

It's murder, in the same way as driving someone to suicide through online bullying is murder. They may have chosen to kill themselves, but that choice was forced upon them by the actions of another person.

[TeePee]

It's murder, in the same way as driving someone to suicide through online bullying is murder. They may have chosen to kill themselves, but that choice was forced upon them by the actions of another person.

A very similar scenario. The difference is that the interaction had stopped before the victim died. With online bullying the death is direct and immediate, while in this case the death was a later decision.

We also run in to the question of justice and revenge. f the victim had not decided to end his life, would the consequences for the perpetrator be different, despite their actions having been the same?

[Xlucine]

It's murder, in the same way as driving someone to suicide through online bullying is murder. They may have chosen to kill themselves, but that choice was forced upon them by the actions of another person.

I agree

A very similar scenario. The difference is that the interaction had stopped before the victim died. With online bullying the death is direct and immediate, while in this case the death was a later decision.

Given he'd require round-the-clock care for the rest of his life, had the interaction really stopped?

We also run in to the question of justice and revenge. f the victim had not decided to end his life, would the consequences for the perpetrator be different, despite their actions having been the same?

If the consequences for the victim were different, he would likely have made a different choice and so the consequences for the perpetrator would be different.

[opel80uk]

It's murder, in the same way as driving someone to suicide through online bullying is murder......

Well it's not really. For it to be in anyway even close to Murder (and even then, i'm not sure it would be) the person doing the bullying would need to know that their actions are likely to cause death, and then it would need to be proven that the bully's intended outcome as a direct result of their actions was that persons suicide; the overwhelming majority of online bullying does not result in anyone dying.

[Zak33]

the defence also claims a diff story.

she claims he had a glass of something, and he tempted her to drink it, and she refused and threw it at him.... and with it being acid, he was scarred by his own weapon.

in terms of a right to euthansia... if he wanted to die because of his physical health i think he should be allowed that right, how so ever the state was caused.

[Ttaskmaster]

Where the hell are all these people so readily getting the acid for all these attacks??!!
Is it not regulated or something?

For it to be in anyway even close to Murder (and even then, i'm not sure it would be) the person doing the bullying would need to know that their actions are likely to cause death

Wiki:

"Because murder is generally defined in law as an intent to cause serious harm or injury (alone or with others), combined with a death arising from that intention, there are certain circumstances where a death will be treated as murder even if the defendant did not wish to kill the actual victim".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law

Seems there are many flavours of murder and other unlawful killings for which this defendant could be charged, including Manslaughter.

and then it would need to be proven that the bully's intended outcome as a direct result of their actions was that persons suicide; the overwhelming majority of online bullying does not result in anyone dying.

Lucio was referring to those where it does result in a suicide, though, and where they therefore are tried as Murder cases.

Regarding the defendant, when the police showed up she readily identified the acid and had even prepared a reasonable use to excuse her possession of it. I would look to argue that she knew what it was she was throwing at the guy and the damage it could do. Therefore her intent was definitely to do serious harm and her actions resulted in the death of the victim.

[sammyc]

the defence also claims a diff story.

she claims he had a glass of something, and he tempted her to drink it, and she refused and threw it at him.... and with it being acid, he was scarred by his own weapon.

She was supposedly the one carrying out incriminating internet searches into sulphuric acid I believe?

[ik9000]

We have to let the trial run its course, but if she indeed is the one who sourced the acid and planned it (and I find her defence argument a bit far fetched when put alongside the other parts I have read from the trial coverage) then frankly it wouldn't seem unreasonable to request she should be dunked in acid herself and left to decompose. How anyone could wish this on another person is beyond me. This doesn't sound spur of the moment, but rather premeditated, and if so there has to be zero sympathy for the perpetrator IMO. Sadly the liberal brigade will no doubt wail and say it's not her fault and make noises about how we should waste money trying to rehabilitate her. That might well be true for lesser crimes, but something as abhorrent as this should not be tolerated on any level.

edit - totally agree this should be considered murder.

[b0redom]

Where the hell are all these people so readily getting the acid for all these attacks??!!
Is it not regulated or something?

Amazon according to the story. Looks like it's the stuff used to unblock drains....

[Ttaskmaster]

it wouldn't seem unreasonable to request she should be dunked in acid herself and left to decompose. How anyone could wish this on another person is beyond me.

Beggin' yer pardon, but isn't that exactly what you just wished upon her...?

Amazon according to the story. Looks like it's the stuff used to unblock drains....

Nah, this is what you need to unblock drains:

[Saracen]

Well it's not really. For it to be in anyway even close to Murder (and even then, i'm not sure it would be) the person doing the bullying would need to know that their actions are likely to cause death, and then it would need to be proven that the bully's intended outcome as a direct result of their actions was that persons suicide; the overwhelming majority of online bullying does not result in anyone dying.

Well, the way I see it is that this is potentially a very interesting and VERY rare thing - an attempt to slightly extend the definition of what constitutes murder.

Conventionally, murder requires proof of two core elements, the actus reas and mens reas. That is respectively, :-

- actus reas - did you do the act.

- mens rea - srate of mind, or more commonly, "intent".

An argument against the first would be "it wasn't me". The second is more subtle. The conventional standard is that if you commit some act intending to cause either death or grievous bodily harm, and a person dies as a result of that act, then it's murder, even if you intended grievous harm but not death. The logic is that few of us are capable of doing something intending to cause grievous harm, like sticking a knife in soneone's chest, and be certain you can do so without killing them.

That is to say, if you stick a knife in someone's chest ahd they don't die, it's more to do with good luck than your intent, so the charge if they ftue as az result would be murder.

Now, take it a step further. You knife someone, they survive long enough to make it to hospital, but die on the operating table during attempts to save them. Because of the direct line between your act and the death, it's murder even though arguably they died directly as a result of the surgery.


Assuming the facts are as alleged by the prosecution and, for the sake of argument, that the "self-defence" claim is rejected, then I'd say the nature of the act and the victim's injuries certainly make this attempted murder and, had he died directly from the acid attack it would be murder.


Where this becomes potentially a law-changing test case is the prosecution's attempt to use the "unbearable physical and psychological suffering" to extend the direct link between acid attack and the victim's eventual death via assisted suicide.

And to me, it's a plausible direct link. But for the attack, suicide would not have been considered, and if not for the acid injuries, assistance would not have been granted. If I try, in as far as it's possible, to imagine myself in his place with his injuries and quality of life, I can quite see myself opting for the same alternative he did. His life, and future expectations, were irrevocably altered, destroyed, and a bleak and horrible future lay ahead, as a direct consequence of the acid attack. His life, as he knew it or could reasonably have expected, was over.

The way I see it, the suicide decision was as a direct consequence of the acid attack, and while it's not where the law currently stands, this case might be the precedent that changes that. And should be.

[ik9000]

Beggin' yer pardon, but isn't that exactly what you just wished upon her...?

That wasn't lost on me when I wrote it. I don't wish it on her, but my point is she brings it on herself by deliberately doing it to another. I struggle to see how any prison sentence is sufficient in cases like this where there has been a premeditated, wilfull intent to horrifically injure and maim someone, which will cause physical and mental suffering for years, and which in this case culminated in a person's death. If that was the default penalty for these acid attacks I wonder how many people would persist in carrying them out knowing they would get the same done back to them?

[Ttaskmaster]

If that was the default penalty for these acid attacks I wonder how many people would persist in carrying them out knowing they would get the same done back to them?

If a prison sentence was actually something people greatly feared, rather than being actually better than the quality of life some free persons get, then perhaps that'd help, too...

[badass]

The way I see it, the suicide decision was as a direct consequence of the acid attack, and while it's not where the law currently stands, this case might be the precedent that changes that. And should be.

I agree wholeheartedly to that. I can't quickly find the sentencing guidelines for either murder or attempted murder, I would presume based on logic alone that they must be the same.