Throughout Jerome Taylor’s article the reader is introduced to Tony Nicklinson, a man suffering from a disease called ‘locked in syndrome’ which means he is ‘paralysed from the neck down’. Taylor presents Nicklinson’s argument for his ‘right to die’. Initially Nicklinson ‘once led an active life’ until he suffered from a stroke six years ago in Athens and become ‘trapped in his own body’. This caused many upsets which lead to a downfall emotionally and physically as he was left disabled and unable to provide and care for himself.
Due to these tragic events Nicklinson’s fight for the ‘right to die’ is argued by the high court. Although, it may be his wish; but the court see that he is using euthanasia is taking advantage of his vulnerability. …show more content…
As Nicklinson has stated that id he had the opportunity and if he knew that he was going to be a victim of ‘locked in syndrome’ then he would have let ‘nature take its course’ and let himself die. The case is the ‘latest right to die’ plea that has come before the courts to determine whether Euthanasia should be legal in certain circumstances. The judge, Justice William Charles states that ‘he was inviting the court to cross the Rubicon’. In contrast to this if euthanasia was legal then it could be more fanatically beneficial for families that can hardly afford the pricey treatment. During Taylor’s article it is clear that keeping Nicklinson alive is causing him to be ‘completely dependent on others’; which is costing a lot of money and time. Fundamentally if the patient is terminally ill and does not want to be alive for any longer, then they should take in to consideration the money and time it costs to keep alive and how it can help many others in this situation.
Overall, if Euthanasia were to become legal then it could cause many issues such as the approach society and parliament would have to take. It could cause serious exploitation to vulnerable patients, and have very ‘harrowing’ physiological effects. I personally, think that Euthanasia should only be legalised for terminally ill patients that are in despair, so people like Nicklinson can get their one and only wish in life. In Taylor’s article it is clear that he is the victim, It means that the public can now come together and maybe help him get his
Due to these tragic events Nicklinson’s fight for the ‘right to die’ is argued by the high court. Although, it may be his wish; but the court see that he is using euthanasia is taking advantage of his vulnerability. …show more content…
As Nicklinson has stated that id he had the opportunity and if he knew that he was going to be a victim of ‘locked in syndrome’ then he would have let ‘nature take its course’ and let himself die. The case is the ‘latest right to die’ plea that has come before the courts to determine whether Euthanasia should be legal in certain circumstances. The judge, Justice William Charles states that ‘he was inviting the court to cross the Rubicon’. In contrast to this if euthanasia was legal then it could be more fanatically beneficial for families that can hardly afford the pricey treatment. During Taylor’s article it is clear that keeping Nicklinson alive is causing him to be ‘completely dependent on others’; which is costing a lot of money and time. Fundamentally if the patient is terminally ill and does not want to be alive for any longer, then they should take in to consideration the money and time it costs to keep alive and how it can help many others in this situation.
Overall, if Euthanasia were to become legal then it could cause many issues such as the approach society and parliament would have to take. It could cause serious exploitation to vulnerable patients, and have very ‘harrowing’ physiological effects. I personally, think that Euthanasia should only be legalised for terminally ill patients that are in despair, so people like Nicklinson can get their one and only wish in life. In Taylor’s article it is clear that he is the victim, It means that the public can now come together and maybe help him get his