An odd definition of "murder"

Via Paul Baird on Facebook, this article about a recent court ruling raises the question of how far the law should restrict personal freedom:

BBC News - Tony Nicklinson loses High Court right-to-die case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19249680

Paul B posted thus:

A very difficult case, but I cannot agree that this is the right outcome. The question must surely include his own wishes, the possibility of improvement and the quality of his life.

In denying him the right to die have we condemned him to a living death instead ? I think that we have, and we have no right to do so.

...and I added a comment:

It's disgraceful. I can't decide whether the judge was too afraid of making a controversial ruling, or was hiding behind the notion that it would be a "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge" to allow a doctor to grant this patient's request.

Those supporting the decision are saying it's not for the court to change the law, and that it's for Parliament to decide if the law should be changed. But unless some controversial court decisions are actually made, Parliament will do nothing.

"For someone else to kill him would amount to murder." I'd be interested to hear the definition of "murder" that fits this particular case.

"The law is well established..." I don't see why a court can't make an exception on the basis of mitigating circumstances, while still making it clear that it is, precisely, an exception.

At the time of writing there are two other comments as well.

Terry Pratchett: Choosing to Die — BBC2, Monday 13 June, 9 pm

Click to enlarge

The cover of next week's Radio Times is in no doubt as to the most significant broadcasting event during the seven days of the listing magazine's coverage. Sir Terry Pratchett peers out from the bottom of this inelegantly designed cover, his stern visage dwarfed by ominous red-on-black typography: "5 minutes of television that will change our lives..."

On Monday 13 June at 9 pm BBC2 will broadcast a specially commissioned documentary about assisted death, and it will feature the actual final moments of someone who has chosen to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland to be assisted in dying. Inside the magazine is an extensive interview with Sir Terry, whose investigations into assisted dying are documented in the programme. It's this interview (and the BBC press release) that forms the basis of several news reports:

Terry Pratchett's BBC documentary reopens debate on assisted dying | Books | The Guardian

Millionaire hotelier Peter Smedley named as man whose assisted suicide was filmed by BBC - Telegraph

'He drinks a liquid, falls into a deep sleep and dies'... the moment a man commits suicide in front of BBC cameras | Mail Online

The Mail article has comments. As of this writing there are a few saying that an actual death is not a fit subject for TV, but none claiming that assisted dying is wrong. Most say the documentary should be shown, and that assisted dying should be legal.

After his impassioned and closely argued plea for the legalisation of assisted dying, delivered as the Richard Dimbleby Lecture last year, Sir Terry was the obvious choice to front this documentary. I look forward to watching it.

---

UPDATE 2011-06-14:

Choosing to Die is now available on the iPlayer for a week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0120dxp/Terry_Pratchett_Choosing_to_Die/
The Newsnight Debate following the documentary should soon be available here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012119k/Newsnight_Choosing_to_Die_Newsnight_Debate/

Shaking Hands with Death — Sir Terry Pratchett's Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Assisted death has always been a touchy subject for religionists — who are generally against it for no other reason than they believe it is against holy writ. They make noises about the danger of coercion, of a "slippery slope", but these objections appear to be so much smoke, intended to conceal their real (and arbitrary) reasons for opposing it.

Those who show true compassion in this matter tend to be the godless ones, unfettered by irrational scripture, and I can cite no better example than fantasy novelist Sir Terry Pratchett, a notable humanist, in his BBC Richard Dimbleby Lecture, broadcast on Monday 1 February 2010:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUE3pBIuAGk
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xZqArQL790


Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27sxmL2vo80
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkUYWzYfFw
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do3ZYt70tg4
Part 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6NMm__EVg

With heartfelt sincerity, plus his characteristic wit, Sir Terry tells it like it is, superbly mediated by his "stunt Pratchett" and friend, Tony Robinson. Watch, listen, and know the truth.

( BitTorrent-enabled users can get a high-definition version here:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5330757/BBC_The_Richard_Dimbleby_Lecture_2010_HDTV_x264_AC3_MVGroup )