JUST A THOUGHT - ON THE BRITISH JUDICIARY'S DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO ASSISTED DYING. PART 1,
So, which element or principle of 'justice' should be given priority, when it is argued that the judgement being sought by the petitioner, might conflict with 'the perceived and/or actual rights' of others?
Even when those rights, at the point of determining the matter before the court, are not in question?
Is it to be the punitive element of justice which offers no relief to the petitioner, which is given priority?
Or is it to be the deterrential element. That which saw, sorry, us 'wisemen and women' cannot allow any changes, because such changes might cause harm to others in future?
What are we to make of a group of asinine British Judges who, asked to deliberate on a man's request to have his right to be assisted to die given effect?
Decided to maintain the status quo, by kick the decision back to the politicians in Parliament?
I mean, it was meant that there should be a separation of powers in the British State, with the 'ordinary judges', if you like, not being subservient to the politicians in Parliament.
But delivering justice on a lawful and impartial manner.
According to the British newspaper, The Guardian, Mr Noel Conley's case was rejected by three senior judges.
Namely, the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, Sir Brian Leveson and Lady Justice King.
The newspaper went on to state that, "reading
a summary of the ruling, Etherton said the court concluded it was not as well-placed as parliament to determine the “necessity and proportionality of a blanket ban."
He also said the high court had evidence before it from which it could find that Conway’s proposed scheme was “inadequate to protect the weak and vulnerable” and failed to give enough weight to the “significance of the sanctity of life and to the scheme’s potential to undermine trust and confidence as between doctors and patients”.
Comments