“The jury agreed, and Eckersley walked away from court…”

If 12 Australians see this as “manslaughter only,” do we still regard the elderly as fully human?

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Ethics and morality, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to “The jury agreed, and Eckersley walked away from court…”

  1. FlyingPigs says:

    I have a dream that every so called university and so called school in Australia will be burnt to the ground.

    Public Education is a waste of taxpayer money.

  2. FlyingPigs says:

    the least they could do is pull down her daks and give her 10 cuts with a cane on her naked arse on ABCess TV.

    far outski.

  3. FlyingPigs says:

    It is time to have elected judges.

    With limited terms.

  4. thefrollickingmole says:

    Vagina magic working in the courts as usual.

  5. Primer says:

    Old age is a shipwreck.
    There is no good way out.

  6. Siltstone says:

    An instance where Wikipedia is correct. Mary White’s entry currently says under cause of death “murder”. Someone who knew her is on to it. In my one meeting with her (last century) she was very nice.

  7. Captain Katzenjammer says:

    Euthanasia legislation isn’t to allow suicide. It’s so doctors and family can avoid being charged with murder or manslaughter when they kill an elderly patient.

  8. roman says:

    At some point our medical discipline stops being about keeping people ***functionally*** alive and more about stopping them from dying. That’s cruel. We need to stop being surprised that death happens and is going to happen. And there needs to be a managed and expected path to end of life. Like birth, maybe even scheduled. Maybe even celebrated – that is with the person before the event, not after!

  9. a reader says:

    No Roman, that is murder.

  10. Dr Faustus says:

    Old age is a shipwreck.
    There is no good way out.

    Unfortunately, true.

  11. roman says:

    Keeping someone in a perpetual state of suffering is torture.
    There comes a point when there will be no recovery. The _person_ is gone. For who is that cage of a body being kept alive if they are literally demented, incontinent and 95% immobile? For their wellbeing, or for yours?
    Death is real and proper. Best get ready for it.

  12. Bad Samaritan says:

    Here’s an example of an “Advanced Care Directive” which every virtue-signalling Cat can peruse, print, and fill in for themselves while still with their marbles intact….Scroll to page 13 where the multiple-choice boxes begin, and give it some thought…

    Why force a relative or friend to ‘imagine’ what you wanted, when you can make it very clear right now?

    FFS. Leftism is a curse.

  13. Albatross says:

    That’s murder.

  14. Ed Case says:

    She mighta been advised to wear sunnies to Court, to me she looks like a wilful thing.
    Just a wild guess here, but it might be a good idea to reconsider sending your young daughter away to Boarding School, particualarly if you’re planning on being an elderly widow down the track.

  15. Ed Case says:

    The Euthanasia “debate” has introduced the idea of wanting to hasten an immediate family member’s demise on the grounds of “ending their suffering”, but I question how genuine such a belief can be.
    Also, family members who start ongoing blues with Nursing Homes should be
    Red Flagged.
    Perhaps their beef is genuine, but the aged mother/father is the meat in the sandwich, they should be aware of that, at least?

  16. Struth says:

    Flying pigs….are you new here, or just rebranded yourself?
    Either way, I like the cut of your jib.

  17. cuckoo says:

    She told the court she had the drugs leftover from when she was a wildlife carer in Canberra more than two decades earlier.

    There are crazy cat ladies, then there are…wildlife carers

  18. Primer says:

    In the traditional system away from urban officialdom medical mercy killings happened all the time. Classically, enough morphine was given to stop the pain and that co-incidentally stopped breathing and killed the patient.
    Nowdays many lingering cancer patients die of thirst or hunger in hospitals as a deliberate plan, hospitals regard withdrawal of water as a “natural” death. Vale Terry.

  19. Googoomuck says:

    Keeping someone in a perpetual state of suffering is torture.

    Whilst not trying to claim equivalence here, we have had to make The Decision on four pets in three years: three were within 12 months. One was cancer and the others were dementia and/or physical frailty. It got me thinking about how we treat humans as they die. I’m not opposed to euthanasia totally but it has to be in the context of a decision made by the applicant when they had their mental faculties. Otherwise there is too much potential for murder. I also read a while ago that euthanasia in the Netherlands was approved for a young depressed person. That’s a far cry from a terminally ill person doped up and with no quality of life. That’s where we are headed if people circumvent the rules.

  20. Richard says:

    Same on you all for such flippancy. Mary White was a remarkable woman with a remarkable intellect, who added much to our knowledge of Australia’s history. It is a sad indictment on us all that her end should be treated this way. Have some compassion.

  21. Rockdoctor says:

    Googoomuck says:
    May 1, 2021 at 9:14 am

    I’m in the same mind. Europe expanding it beyond terminally ill was a slippery slope in action IMO. Incidentally I have a similar view on abortion.

  22. Roger says:

    Classically, enough morphine was given to stop the pain and that co-incidentally stopped breathing and killed the patient.

    That would be murder.

    In palliative care the administration of morphine is controlled so that it alleviates pain but does not suppress breathing to the point of death. The patient dies from their illness, not the opioid, and they would die in the same time frame without the opioid, only in more pain.

  23. Primer says:

    Indeed Rog. Welcome to how the world works, your theoretical reality doesn’t extend past Sydney suburbs.

  24. Ed Case says:

    In palliative care the administration of morphine is controlled so that it alleviates pain but does not suppress breathing to the point of death.

    What’s “the point of death”?
    Is it defined?
    Opioids suppress breathing, that’s a fact.
    Can the Nurse get the mix right 100% of the time?
    I has me doubts.

  25. Roger says:

    What’s “the point of death”?

    Seriously, Ed?

    Welcome to how the world works, your theoretical reality doesn’t extend past Sydney suburbs.

    Nonsense. Palliative care is highly regulated and the administration of opioids in it is well understood by doctors.

  26. Primer says:

    Oh dear, it’s not a matter of being not “understood” or accidental Rog, both morphine overdose and death by dehydration are viewed as efficacious. Morphine certainly can be.

  27. C.L. says:

    Primer, the woman poisoned her own mother to death with multiple doses of animal drugs, thereby committing matricide. Her claim that she just wanted mum to sleep is clearly a lie and her ‘out of my body’ bullshit could have been scripted by a lawyer (and probably was) to create some pretext for diminished responsibility.

    This was an evil act.

    The fact that a jury sympathised with a woman who wanted to be rid of her old bag of bones mother is a frightening indictment of our society’s utiliatrian selfishness. If you want to know why the elderly are unloved in nursing ‘homes,’ look no further than this case. Twelve everyday Australians demonstrated how much of a nuisance old people are in their eyes.

    New South Wales should appeal the decision but my guess is – wink wink – they’ll let it go. In doing so, they will more or less legalise murdering the frail.

    Meanwhile, there is a national panic about domestic violence.

  28. Roger says:

    Oh dear, it’s not a matter of being not “understood” or accidental Rog, both morphine overdose and death by dehydration are viewed as efficacious. Morphine certainly can be.

    It’s like talking to a wall.

  29. max says:

    All of us should have will that say what to do in the case of incapacity and vegetative state of mind.

    if there is no instructions, deciding alone without consultations with medical and law, is murder.

  30. Primer says:

    Not questioning that CL.
    Mine is a wider point about the real world of routine euthanasia.
    Would I regard it as honourable to sedate a dying sheep for a week and let it die of dehydration or put it down with a bullet? Hospitals use dehydration as a standard practice.

  31. Ed Case says:

    Meanwhile, there is a national panic about domestic violence.

    It’s the great standby.
    Cracks appearing in The Narrative?
    Segue to Domestic Violence Shock Horror on the front pages for a week.
    Job done.

  32. kneel says:

    “Keeping someone in a perpetual state of suffering is torture.”

    Indeed – one that if perpetrated on anything other than a fellow human being would be regarded as cruel and perhaps even worthy of criminal charges.

    However, one can always refuse treatment – as the possibility of such a fate approaches, you should plan carefully to ensure your own desires in the matter are met. Your body, your life, your choice – exerecise it.

  33. cuckoo says:

    She told the court she had the drugs leftover from when she was a wildlife carer in Canberra more than two decades earlier.

    After all, who doesn’t have stashes of twenty year old plus narcotics in their bathroom cupboard?

  34. Roger says:

    Hospitals use dehydration as a standard practice.

    Fluids are withdrawn from dying patients because their organs are shutting down and they cannot process them; indeed hydration may exacerbate their symptoms and cause other problems that only complicate the end of life.

  35. Primer says:

    That’s brilliant Rog.

  36. Riversutra says:

    if you want to know why the elderly are unloved in nursing ‘homes,’ look no further than this case. Twelve everyday Australians demonstrated how much of a nuisance old people are in their eyes.

    Your lifestyle allows abortion of unwanted inconveniences and now you can get rid of the other unwanted inconvenience that is also mucking it up (and pick up some valuable real estate at the same time).
    The Royal Commission on Aged Care proved without a doubt, Aussies can’t be bothered looking after the old in the slightest so why be surprised when a jury of 12 confirms the widespread beliefs.

  37. Gilas says:

    Cats on COVID restrictions ostensibly imposed because “even if it saves one life, it’s worth it.”:
    Totalitarian overreach, the start of a fascist Australia!

    Cats on the death of one person in a vegetative state:
    Murder!

    Hmmmm… any inconsistencies here? Are these not, on the surface, morally equivalent situations?

    If anything, a COVID death in a previously-functioning elderly person is a much greater tragedy than the morally justifiable relieving of the suffering of a demented elder in a semi-vegetative state.

    Now for the inevitable pile-on….

  38. C.L. says:

    Cats on the death of one person in a vegetative state:
    Murder!

    The death of? You mean, the killing of.

  39. Kneel says:

    “Hmmmm… any inconsistencies here? Are these not, on the surface, morally equivalent situations?”

    No, they are not – even asking this question shows what is arguably insurmountable ignorance. However, never let it be said that we do not at least attempt to educate the ignorant:

    Arguing against forcing low risk people to give up their freedom, income and investments in order to protect the vulnerable, instead of directly protecting the vulnerable themselves is in no way comparable to arguing against giving someone a drug with the specific purpose of ending their life.

    Not. Even. Close.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.