We need an urgent political debate in this country about “mercy killings” following a decision by the Court of Appeal today rejecting a mother’s conviction of
m
urder after she fatally injected her brain-inured son with a heroin injection to end his “living hell”. Why wasn’t it reduced to manslaughter?
Frances Inglis, 58, of Dagenham, was jailed for life at the Old Bailey in January after giving her son Thomas, 22, a lethal injection to end his life “peacefully and painlessly” following an accident when he fell from an ambulance and suffered catastrophic head injuries. The court reduced her sentence to a minimum of five years.
The court was told that when the mother injected Thomas with the lethal dose of heroin as he lay in a care home 16 months later, mute and in need of 24-hour care, she did not feel that she was murdering him. She believed she was “releasing” him as he had not uttered a word since the accident, nor communicated in any way beyond squeezing her hand. His devastated mother felt certain that he was in constant pain and had no wish to continue living like that.
Yes it is murder.
A psychologist (an ‘expert’ witness remember) has written that a man murdering his family did so out of familial love. A totally proposterous conclusion. This Prof Browne states that “they illogically convince themselves that the best way forward is to kill them all [his family] and meet them on the other side” yet there is no evidence that the men were religious or believed in reincarnation or any heavenly afterlife. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1516969.stm) As a ‘best guess’ Prof Browne’s conclusions are to be found wanting in that he completely ignores the bleedin obvious about human nature and instead prefers some bonkers explanation of ‘familial love’.
This is just one example of why I would oppose ‘familial love’ to be a legal excuse for murder. The precedent could be twisted and used to suit sinister applications as well as genuine ones. And if we were persuaded by genuine feelings of sparing the afflicted then where would it stop?
If this man could not communicate then how do we know he truly wished to die? However much one might sympathise, this was undoubtedly murder.
Pip, you ask, “If this man could not communicate then how do we know he truly wished to die?”
I wondered that too, but his mother felt that it was something her son would have wanted.
This is an issue we all feel uncomfortable with discussing because it is so emotive. I don’t have any answers because there are so many different ways at looking at it. It’s so very, very hard.
Ellee, I dread to think what my life would have been like if it had had to be lived according to what my mother thought was best.
Pip, yes, I understand.
Elle his mother simply could not have known what he would have wanted .
The fact that he could still communicate by hand action showed he was still aware of himself and people have been known to in time ” come back ”
She had no right to act as she did , this is not love it is indeed murder as it was a decision formulated and acted upon .
No one has the right to take life neither from the unborn foetus nor in cases such as this .
There is no such thing as mercy killing .
I’m for euthenasia but it should be decided by a court and not individuals.
Earlier this year I wrote about how Richard Rudd was brought back from the brink of death when it seemed his life was all but over. https://elleeseymour.com/2010/07/14/between-life-and-death-have-you-made-a-living-will/
One can’t say if that would have been the same for Thomas because of his terrible head injuries. His mother felt she was acting in his best interests and is having to pay the price for the consequences of her actions. I think if you asked her if she would do it again, the answer would be yes.
This Prof Browne states that “they illogically convince on their own that the very best way forward is always to destroy all of them his loved ones and meet them on the other side†nevertheless there is no proof which the males have been religious or believed in reincarnation or any heavenly afterlife.
When this court case happened earlier this year I couldn’t help thinking (perhaps cynically) that she acted out of a desire to release not only her son but herself. She was tormented by her own situation as a mother of a brain damaged son who had been changed irreparably by his injuries, as well as tormented by the thought of his pain and suffering. The fact is that Thomas Inglis did not communicate his wish to die, nor did he fit the criteria of being ‘allowed to die’ because he was able to breathe on his own.
You ask why not manslaughter, but she intended to kill her son (and had in fact worsened his condition by an earlier, failed attempt to kill him) when she knew that her wish was not at that time supported by her family or the medical professionals treating him. She felt she knew better than everybody else.
Just because you believe something strongly does not make it right. We see examples of this every day. She took away the options. She chose for everybody, including her son. This is not acceptable in our society.
Many people are in unfortunate positions, but the answer is to press for reform, not to take it into your own hands and resort to violence. I know I wouldn’t want to be killed off just because one person decides it is right, even if it was my mother. When there are grey areas (such as abortion / vegetative states) it should be decided on the basis of the best scientific evidence not by some moral judgement of one person.
What this blog should be about is that the sentences available for this unique situation were limited. She deserved to be punished for acting as she did, in ignorance of the law, but there is an argument that there are alternatives to a life sentence with a minimum of five years in prison. Perhaps a straight five year sentence (meaning she would be released without conditions) for example.
Bob, Thinking this through more and reading others’ comments, I agree with what you say, and thank you for expressing your views so eloquently. There certainly can’t be an acceptable moral judgements for people to take the law into their own hands, and we must always face the consequences of our actions, yet there are many “grey” areas which the law fails to fit in with appropriately and where leniency could be extended, which I believe is what has happened now with the reduced sentencing of Mrs Inglis. A very sorry case indeed.