"Should Ian Brady be allowed to starve himself to death?"

[Breathe]

For those who don't know, Ian Brady was a child rapist and murderer; his victims were five children between the ages of 10 and 17.

I'm watching last week's "The Big Questions" on TV; one of the topics is, "Should Ian Brady be allowed to starve himself to death?".

Should he be allowed to starve himself to death if he so wishes, or does he forfeit the right to choose when he dies because he denied others that right?


Thoughts?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

A tough one... I would argue he is but mainly because I would not want to get into the slippery slope problem. We need to have certain human rights upheld... even if at times that extends those same rights to human trash.

edit: and no i have never heard of this person before nor am aware of the details of his alleged crimes. that is not relevant to my comment since human trash was intended as a general label rather than a specific reference to him.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think people should be force fed against their will, physically or with some tube. If someone in prison refuses to eat or drink, I don't view it as ethical to force them to.

I see no reason to do so, and it certainly doesn't match up with my view of what the purpose of prison is.

 

[freethinker44]

When or if he is released from prison and paid his debt to society, then I have no problem if he wants to starve himself to death. Until he pays for the crimes he has committed he shouldn't be able to end his sentence early, even if it is through death.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see no reason to deny him the right to starve to death. Just make sure that it is a choice, not an imposition.

 

[Quintessence]

Don't know who this guy is, and I don't care. I don't care what his circumstances are or who he is as a person. Everybody has the right to end their own life whenever and however they see fit. I prefer people do so in a responsible fashion, such as making arrangements for their dependents and estate, however.

 

[Apex]

For those who don't know, Ian Brady was a child rapist and murderer; his victims were five children between the ages of 10 and 17.

I'm watching last week's "The Big Questions" on TV; one of the topics is, "Should Ian Brady be allowed to starve himself to death?".

Should he be allowed to starve himself to death if he so wishes, or does he forfeit the right to choose when he dies because he denied others that right?


Thoughts?

Depends, which route is more painful, starving to death or a life of force feeding through a tube...

 

[Alceste]

It's his body. Force feeding is extremely unethical.

 

[Draka]

The thought that popped in my mind..."Hey, he's saving tax payer dollars all around!"

Honestly, if he wants to starve himself to death, if he thinks he's atoning or whatever, let him have at it. I certainly wouldn't make any efforts to forcefully prolong his life if he decided to end it.

 

[Breathe]

Honestly, if he wants to starve himself to death, if he thinks he's atoning or whatever, let him have at it. I certainly wouldn't make any efforts to forcefully prolong his life if he decided to end it.

Someone who met him was in the discussion, and said he's remarkably callous, and unfazed by what he did. It's not out of a desire for atonement, but it's his way of controlling once more; in the same way he would deliberately sit at 'right angles' to people because it made them feel awkward when speaking to him.

 

[Alceste]

Someone who met him was in the discussion, and said he's remarkably callous, and unfazed by what he did. It's not out of a desire for atonement, but it's his way of controlling once more; in the same way he would deliberately sit at 'right angles' to people because it made them feel awkward when speaking to him.

Fine, then let him control himself to death. Who cares?

 

[Breathe]

Fine, then let him control himself to death.

But should he have that right to decide when he dies when he took it away from others?

Who cares?

Some people.

 

[Alceste]

But should he have that right to decide when he dies when he took it away from others?


Some people.

I think if the state wants him dead, who cares how he dies?

I'm a pragmatist. To me it is better that he is either dead or imprisoned for life to prevent him from harming other children. I don't care how the objective of preventing him from harming others is achieved. Suicide would be great, though. Save money, save the expense of additional hearings and an execution, etc, and he's dead. No chance of harming anybody ever again.

I don't believe in punishment.

 

[Breathe]

I think if the state wants him dead, who cares how he dies?

The parents of the deceased, possibly.

I'm a pragmatist. To me it is better that he is either dead or imprisoned for life to prevent him from harming other children. I don't care how the objective of preventing him from harming others is achieved. Suicide would be great, though. Save money, save the expense of additional hearings and an execution, etc, and he's dead. No chance of harming anybody ever again.

Ah, but this is in namby-pamby Britain: we don't have the death penalty.

I don't believe in punishment.

Why not? Any punishment, or...?

 

[Penumbra]

But should he have that right to decide when he dies when he took it away from others?

What's the purpose of denying him this right?

Is the purpose anything other than sadism?

I don't believe in state-sponsored sadism and I support freedom from torture for all individuals. The reasons given in this thread for supporting force feeding are basically all pro-torture; all the reasons given are focused on making sure he suffers in some way, rather than offering any practical reasons that would benefit other people (other than their sense of sadism, apparently). If the man doesn't want to eat, then who cares? Giving him attention, and doing things like force feeding people is looney, is it not?

 

[Breathe]

What's the purpose of denying him this right?

Is the purpose anything other than sadism?

He has not emotionally paid for his crimes, for one; he is completely unrepentant. By controlling when he dies, he wants to stick two fingers up at society, and at the parents of the children whom he raped and murdered, to show his message of 'haha, I win, **** you' to a society he hates. It started as a tantrum because he couldn't get his way to donate a kidney, if I recall what I read correctly.

If the man doesn't want to eat, then who cares?

What about if someone's child -- under 18, or over, decides they want to starve? Would it be torture to get them to eat?

And again, the parents of the children who died. Letting him kill himself is saying to the parents 'he killed your kid, and then chose to kill himself after years of not caring. He died in full control'. I disagree with that.

Personally, I want him dead, but not by his own choice. Shanked in prison, death by firing squad, or an air bubble in a blood transfusion are all suitable and fitting ways for this man to go. I'm an open misanthropist and sadistic though. Can't tell whether it's the meds (side effects: aggression, "not caring", agitation, etc) or a bitter side being unleashed that I never knew I had.

 

[Alceste]

The parents of the deceased, possibly.


Ah, but this is in namby-pamby Britain: we don't have the death penalty.


Why not? Any punishment, or...?

It's a mistake to assume all parents of murder victims support punishment, including capital punishment. People still have variety of opinions. I heard a radio interview with two mothers of sons who were killed by people suffering from untreated mental illness. While both wanted to ensure that their children's killer would not be permitted to kill again, one favoured a life long prison sentience while the other favoured the destigmatization of mental illness and expanded treatment services.

I don't support punishment because I do not believe it is an effective means to the end of reducing crime. I favour rehabilitation and the improvement of the social conditions that lead to crime.

 

[Breathe]

I favour rehabilitation and the improvement of the social conditions that lead to crime.

What about for the unrepentant for whom rehabilitation does not work?

 

[Alceste]

What about for the unrepentant for whom rehabilitation does not work?

If they're still dangerous, keep them locked up. Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[freethinker44]

If they're still dangerous, keep them locked up. Seems like a no brainer to me.

That is exactly what the OP is about though. He has been locked up for for a few decades and now he wants to kill himself instead of serving out his life sentence. Should he be allowed to kill himself or should he be forced to carry out his sentence? I say let him stay in prison. He had the choice to not be imprisoned, he gave up that choice when he murdered those children. Let him serve out his sentence and then he can die.