-
Posts
-
On reading today’s follow up stories in the papers, it would appear that the son was totally ‘brain damaged’ and was incapable of doing anything other that blinking and perhaps moving a finger, or something like this.
To my mind, this begs the question around how on earth the mother could have “known” that her son was in unbelievable agony etc etc given that he was, to all practical intents and purposes, a paraplegic with no means of external communication.
The more I think about it the more I’m drawn to the view that this was a callous act of murder by a mother who simply wanted rid of her burden – rather that an act of love by a ‘caring’ mother who wanted to help her son die peacefully and end his suffering.
I reckon that the “Guilty” verdict was the correct one and she should now be punished accordingly.
One question for you PB
Would you want to live like that ? I’m not saying she was right or wrong in what she did I’m just curious to know if you’d want to live in such a vegetative state.
@Velvet 1 wrote:
One question for you PB
Would you want to live like that ? I’m not saying she was right or wrong in what she did I’m just curious to know if you’d want to live in such a vegetative state.You sure pose a tough question Velvet.
The honest answer is, I don’t really know. Part of me says that I wouldn’t want to be like that for the rest of what might remain of my life; and part of me acknowledges that the will to live – whatever the circumstances – is very strong indeed….. in all of us.
If it had to be, then I guess I’d want to live on as long as possible. I would always have my memories of the past and I presume that I would have some recognition of my present. It’s easy to say (from the perspective of being healthy and active) “I could never go on living if this happened to me” but if, God forbid, it did happen then I suspect that one’s perspective would change a lot.
I suppose that the answer is that it should be up to the affected individual to make the decision to go on living, or to end it all. If they are unable to make, or communicate, their decision … then I think that the ‘default setting’ should be to preserve their life as long as reasonably possible.
i certainly wouldnt not a chance
I have told Mr Kent to pull the plug on me if I ever became in such a bad state of health, but he has said there is no way he would be able to. And to be honest if it were the other way round I’m not sure I would be able to do it to him or any of my family….in the back of your mind there is always hope for a miracle.
But I can totally understand why people do and have. But as I have said in an earlier post…the verdict of guilty was brought due to an unlawful act being comitted.
Compassion killing is not lawful in this country.I haven’t read all the articles on this – but I do find it strange that his injuries came about as a result of falling from an Ambulance.
Her actions and how she came to murder her son suggests her mind could have been unstable – but she was charged in court so they deemed her fit to stand trial.I know of someone who was brain damaged and paralysed to the extent that to start with she couldn’t even blink. Eventually she managed to blink in response to questions. They could only indicate that they understood what was being answered by blinking once for yes and twice for no. They were eventually asked if they were in pain… Blink…. terrible pain? Blink….. It had taken her six months to be able to blink and she had been brain damaged and paralysed for longer than that, and in constant pain and not able to tell anyone. She will never be able to move more that to blink, and she will always be in constant pain and dependent on pain killers.
So should this mother have killed her son? I won’t judge because I have never been in that situation, and I hope to god I never am.
@forumhostpb wrote:
There is one aspect of this whole sorry mess that puzzles me. Why choose heroin as a means of killing (or murdering) her son and how did she know where to get it?
It wasn’t the first time she’d tried to murder him by giving him an OD of heroin either.
I reckon that most people wouldn’t know where to buy the stuff (illegally) and wouldn’t use it as the murder weapon of choice in any event.
As I understand it, the mother was a nurse and would have had some medical knowledge. If she wanted to murder her son in a painless way, surely the ‘plastic bag over the head’ method would have been far simpler and equally ‘painless’.
I find myself wondering if there isn’t more to all this than initially meets the eye?
Sorry please dont take this the wrong way, but what planet are you living on?
Any of us could probably get almost any illegal drug we want within 5 minutes of leaving our house if we put our mind to it!
Well I think I’m living on Planet Decency – but in reality I guess I’m living on the edge of a drug infested sh*thole. Yes of course I realise that illegal drugs can be obtained relatively simply – if you really try. I just found myself wondering why the mother chose that particular method of killing her son.
Then I recalled an article written about the son’s accident, way back. As I remember it, he had been involved in some sort of street altercation, whilst he was “high” on something or other…. illegal drugs probably, but it could have been ethanol.
He was apparently injured; an ambulance was sent for and he was placed in it, to be taken to his nearest A&E for ‘repair’. It was said that he was so out of it (on drugs???) that during the high speed dash to A&E he overpowered the medics and leapt out of the back of the ambulance; causing (or adding to) the injuries that later on led to his mother murdering him.
I wonder if the ‘real’ reason for the mother murdering her son had nothing to do with wanting to help end his pain and something to do with her wanting to finish the job that he seemed to have started.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!