Comments:UK woman convicted of 'mercy' murder of son

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should the law be changed?[edit]

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

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 law should not be flexible, but in this case as the mother presents it, it should indeed be considered as an act of mercy. There should be an alternative to spending time in prison IF she is not a person with previous criminal records.


I don't want to weigh in on whether or not I think what she did was acceptable; but I do want to say that, for sticking with her convictions and facing judgement, despite being so sure of the consequences, I think that's admirable. A more selfish person would have lied or tried to cover up their actions. It's rare to see someone who truly believes in what they're doing. --67.174.131.145 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Laws are law(l)s. Simple as that. You go in prison for killing someone out of mercy in a fast, humane and painless way, but it's completely legal to let that person die slowly of thirst. You go in prison for having a plant of cannabis in your house, but it's completely legal to get drunk, so drunk that you don't know you're too drunk to drive, then drive 2 tons of steel into innocent pedestrians. Current laws are fucked up and unfair. I don't know if they should be flexible or whatever, all I know is that they should be FAIR.

Laws have never been about justice or fairness. They simply serve to maintain order. Justice is a side product that is preferred but not necessary, and it is a shame that current societies have not found a system other than the inflexible and often exploitable laws to maintain social integrity. 99.247.82.251 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • My opinion is laws need to be rewritten to apply to today's society and its culture. The right to live is something one can choose to use as the right to die as well. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the law be changed?[edit]

I believe that the law should be changed. Medical science still does not understand the mind completely and therefore cannot possibly tell us if a person in a vegetative state is suffering or not. I think once someone has lost all control of their body they must be suffering and rather than they become a burden on someone else, whether that be the hospital or their next of kin, they must be allowed to end their lives in a humane and peaceful manner. - PranoyG

Should the law be changed?[edit]

Yes I Think what Toms mom did was right . Mercy killing should be legalized in every manner . Instaed of seeing Your loved ones suffer and be helpless .


Syed Kashif Raza

Every manner? What if some lunatic wants to spare the world of its suffering? I can understand giving the choice of euthenasia, but only
  • has no hope of recovery,
  • has no living will, and
  • cannot communicate.
It's not so simple, Syed.

One more case for anarchy. How many will it take?

Law is absolutism and only works for dishonest people willing to abuse it. We keep inventing more and more beaurocracy and more and more complex laws, to the point that lawyers dedicate half their lives to learning just a section of it. Still the common person is told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and still we have those who, by no fault of ignorance, fall through the cracks because their situations, like all human beings, are unique. We can dedicate the entire biomass of the planet to putting infinitely detailed laws in writing, and people will still fall through the cracks because every life is unique and the potential range of human context and action is infinite.

So what do we consider these people who are victimized by the law? Sacrificed at the altar of order in society? Maybe we should go back to spilling blood to be sure the sun rises tomorrow.

I agree 100% with Alex. Let a person starve to death is not right but is the legal way. laws must be changed so that a person can die in a humane way.