Comments:British conductor Edward Downes and wife die in double assisted suicide
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
i think this proceedurer should be legalised because a lot people suffer from different ailments and are unable to get the rest they need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenderlivity (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is the death of the couple referred to as an "assisted suicide"? I was aware that there was a special term for this kind of death -"euthanasia". Calling the Downes' decision to end their live by their own will as a result of debilitating injury a suicide is criminalizing their act of great courage and desparation.—Tigaernach (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Simple use of the word 'suicide' does no such thing. It was a suicide; a decision to take their own lives. It was assisted; some kind people were willing to help them through with it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- To my mind "assisted suicide" is a more neutral term than "euthanasia" where the "eu-" comes from the Greek for "good". The Downes' supporters would say that they did have a good death. "Pro-life" (another loaded term) advocates would not say that it was a good death. The policy of Wikinews is that articles should not take sides in debates such as these.
- On the other hand, it is true that Ted and Joan did commit suicide in that they each drank a drug knowing that it was a fatal poison in the quantities they took. It was assisted in that they were provided with the drug by people who knew why they would take it and who had the expertise to set the dose.
- "Assisted suicide" is also narrower than "euthanasia" in that the latter term includes circumstances in which the dying person does not make the decision or does not carry out the killing act themselves.
- And the criminalising of an act is done by the powers that be not and not by the description of it. The w:Suicide Act 1961 states that "A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or attempt by another to commit suicide shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years." The Downes did certainly aid and abet eachother's suicides. So in Britain, crimes were committed. That is why the CID have become involved. They are no doubt investigating how Caractacus and Boudicca were involved, though the Crown Prosecution Service will almost certainly decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute them.
- The same actions would be perfectly legal in Switzerland. And in Britain before 1961, the Downes would also have committed crimes in killing themselves. As I said, it's the powers that be that decide that actions are crimes. And, as the article implies, opinion is divided about whether the powers that be in Britain have it right.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let's not quibble over the neutrality of semantics. 'Euthanasia' is a perfectly acceptable (and accurate) term. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)