Man admits murder on TV - is arrested..

[Barringtonia]

Nottinghamshire police have arrested Ray Gosling on suspicion of murder after the 70-year old TV presenter made a televised confession to killing a gay lover who was suffering in the advanced stages of Aids.

Gosling yesterday said he would refuse to divulge details of the victim and when and where the killing took place, "even under torture".

He claimed that keeping his silence was part of the "pact" he had with the victim, which involved Gosling taking his life if his condition progressed beyond a certain point. He also claimed he had the tacit consent of a doctor for his act.

Is this a brave man?

Gosling was arrested this morning, around 36 hours after he told viewers of the BBC's east Midlands Inside Out programme that he had used a pillow to suffocate an unidentified young man who he claimed was dying in hospital.

"We have arrested a 70-year-old man this morning on suspicion of murder following comments on the BBC's Inside Out programme on Monday," said a spokesman. Further statements are expected later in the day.

He, as far as we know, broke the law, and one cannot take the law into one's own hands in this case since we only have his word that the AIDS patient [and, despite being slightly irrelevant, the doctor] assented to the suffocation.

Yet what is the case against controlled mercy killing?

Effectively, how can the law be changed unless someone like Ray Gosling goes ahead and does it and then admits it in order to maintain the issue within the public eye?

Hence, within the parameters that he admitted the act in order to raise the issue - is this a brave man?

[Gooktubania]

WTF? What the fuck am I reading?!

[La Habana]

WTF? What the fuck am I reading?!

If you have nothing positive to contribute, keep your mouth shut.

Back to topic, yes I agree with what he did, as his lover had said to him that he did not want to go on living if there was no hope, which is why Gosling did what he did.

[Zot109land]

this man who was killed was going to die anyway and the guy thats killed him is 70years old tommorow he can just fall dead so free the space in prison that he take for younger criminals

[Ermarian]

Well, "brave" is pretty much a given. When you do something that you know is going to cost you, in order to do something you think is right, anything is brave (even some pretty despicable acts).

What we're going to discuss here is probably whether what he did was right. I think it is. He should have documented the patient's wish better, though, so the court wouldn't have to take his word for it.

[Birnadia]

Back to topic, yes I agree with what he did, as his lover had said to him that he did not want to go on living if there was no hope.

^this.

[Ermarian]

the guy thats killed him is 70years old tommorow he can just fall dead so free the space in prison that he take for younger criminals

That is a novel line of argument.

[The Alma Mater]

Did his lover write down his wishes, preferably in front of witnesses, and can this document be produced ?
Or can he conclusively prove his lover wanted this some other way ?
Yes ?

Then *morally* I have no problems with it. But it is still against the law, sadly.

[Barringtonia]

Back to topic, yes I agree with what he did, as his lover had said to him that he did not want to go on living if there was no hope.

It's not so much whether one agrees with what he did as to whether what he did was necessary to keep the issue in the public eye. I can see no issue with controlled mercy killing, that is, where someone expresses their intent over certain procedures including medical advice among others.

Yet the law will not change unless it's maintained in the public eye and, increasingly, it takes a news worthy act to keep it there, hence I see quite some value, given the facts measure up, to what Ray Gosling has done.

[Dimoniquid]

Meeeh... he had guts, to admit it on TV, though.

[Barringtonia]

Did his lover write down his wishes, preferably in front of witnesses, and can this document be produced ?
Or can he conclusively prove his lover wanted this some other way ?
Yes ?

I don't know - I would prefer he did have documented evidence that the man wanted to die past a certain point - it would help the statement somewhat.

Then *morally* I have no problems with it. But it is still against the law, sadly.

Sure, but does this sort of protest act (specifically admitting it on TV) - again, given that's what it is - help to get legislation changed?

[Cabra West]

I saw the interview with him yesterday on the telly....
I'm a bit in two minds about this. Yes, I do agree with him killing his lover if the man was in immense pain, uncurably sick, and wanted to die. I can see no wrong in shortening his suffering.
It is still legally murder, though. He knew what he was in for when he made this confession on the telly, and that took some guts.
On the other hand, all we really have is his word for it that his lover wanted to die. To excuse murder with something as unreliable and flimsy as that doesn't sit well with me. I do believe that killing someone who doesn't want to continue living in case of incurable disease should be made legal, but it should come with clauses and conditions that establish as much as possible if the person really does want to die. I think that's utterly essential.

[The Alma Mater]

Back to topic, yes I agree with what he did, as his lover had said to him that he did not want to go on living if there was no hope.

It's not so much whether one agrees with what he did as to whether what he did was necessary to keep the issue in the public eye. I can see no issue with controlled mercy killing, that is, where someone expresses their intent over certain procedures including medical advice among others.

You might be interested in the current case of the 99-year old Moek Heringa. She felt her life was "done" and that there was no point living on, despite her not being lifethreateningly ill or anything. So her stephson helped her die with pills. And documented that all on video. The documentary was then shown in a prime time news program on Dutch public television.

http://www.netwerk.tv/uitzending/2010-0 ... l-commotie

EDIT: corrected the link. The documentary is at the bottom of the page. In Dutch, but the gist should be clear.

[Karaginsky]

It's a Catch 22 for the guy. It's not for sure that he would've died because AIDS doesn't kill you, the cold after AIDS kills you so there's always that chance. But overall, if there was consent I think it was justified.

[Dimoniquid]

It's a Catch 22 for the guy. It's not for sure that he would've died because AIDS doesn't kill you, the cold after AIDS kills you so there's always that chance. But overall, if there was consent I think it was justified.

Wait, you can get hot or cold AIDS now?

[Barringtonia]

I saw the interview with him yesterday on the telly....

Hmm, I can link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxZj3SRHvw - it doesn't seem as if he's too much bothered about euthanasia and not making a cause of it. Is that the same interview though, it seems a news interview on the original.

You might be interested in the current case of the 99-year old Moek Heringa. She felt her life was "done" and that there was no point living on, despite her not being lifethreateningly ill or anything. So her son helped her die with pills. And documented that all on video. The documentary was then shown in a prime time news program on Dutch public television.

Ah, I googled but a lot of Dutch - I notice that wikipedia.nl isn't listed first although it is generally first in English - total irrelevant observation.

[Karsol]

This is why I hate the anti- euthanasia law.


It does mean 'good death'.


The country is judged by immoral heartless half-men

[Laerod]

How exactly is this murder?

[Karsol]

How exactly is this murder?

The Cpurts judge Euthanasia murder.

[The Alma Mater]

Ah, I googled but a lot of Dutch

I added a link to the documentary (second video on the page) to my post above. While they speak Dutch, the tone is quite.. understandable I think.

[Barringtonia]

How exactly is this murder?

Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

[Laerod]

How exactly is this murder?

The Cpurts judge Euthanasia murder. :(

How exactly is this murder?

Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being

Damn, that's pretty backward. In Germany, this isn't even manslaughter.

[Barringtonia]

Damn, that's pretty backward. In Germany, this isn't even manslaughter.

In Germany I can kill someone and simply claim that's what they wanted?

I don't think so.

[Non Aligned States]

Effectively, how can the law be changed unless someone like Ray Gosling goes ahead and does it and then admits it in order to maintain the issue within the public eye?

There are a variety of ways the law can be changed. Acting like this only damages the attempt. Do you argue for healthcare reform by getting terminally ill patients (who had their insurance cancelled) to shoot insurance company directors?

Actually, scratch that. It might work. Or make them more vicious. Not sure which.

Hence, within the parameters that he admitted the act in order to raise the issue - is this a brave man?

Foolhardy, maybe.

[Whole Conviction]

How exactly is this murder?

The Cpurts judge Euthanasia murder.

The youth in Asia want to kill your grandma. D=

As has been said -- brave is given. I do hope that he is telling the truth. If so... this was an act of love.

Laws against euthanasia don't make any sense anyway. It happens in hospitals every day. Every single doctor out there either has done it or knows a doctor who's done it. Since it's illegal, it happens without documentation, regulation or inspection. Legalising it would in fact reduce incidences of abuse...