From the article:
TWO women who say they were helping an Alzheimer's sufferer fulfil his wish to die, have been found guilty of killing him.
This is interesting:
The complex case was full of twists and dramas, many kept from the eyes and ears of the jury.
While jurors were told of Justins's alleged financial motive - Mr Wylie had changed his will a week before his death in her favour - they had not been told that his partner allegedly had a female lover in Germany.
If this is true, it doesn't seem irrelevant to the case!
I also wonder at the wisdom of Dr Philip Nitschke, the euthanasia advocate who acted as a witness in return for immunity from prosecution. His view, according to the article, is that we should be pressing on with allowing cases like this to be treated as euthanasia, and that in the meantime people who would like to be euthanased and suspect that they have Alzheimer's should not go to the doctor.
2 comments:
Can we stop calling it euthanasia - to label it a good death is to assume what is at issue.
Lets stick with 'killing' - either of yourself or someone else.
Lets hear the argument for why we should have a society where killing people is morally acceptable.
I get angry when it is claimed people with dementia are in a different moral category - it ok to kill them.
I agree Michael. Otherwise we sound like Nazi Germany with it's euphemisms. And while we're talking murder, killing babies needs to be called killing babies not the other nonsense.
Post a Comment