Hotheads Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire Hotheads website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein


The principle behind euthanasia is that people must have the right to determine whether they wish to continue their lives or terminate them. In modern society, there is the ludicrous concept that suicide is a crime, so the only people that can be charged with this crime are those who did not succeed in killing themselves. Even worse is the way that people who want to die are forcibly kept alive against their will, even by hooking them up to life support machinery.


If you had a dog that was suffering continuous and excruciating agony from cancer or as a result of injuries, it would be your duty to have that dog euthanased as an act of mercy. In fact, if you deliberately kept that dog alive to suffer for an extended time, you could be charged with the crime of animal cruelty. Of course, any person who would allow his dog to suffer like that deliberately would be considered by any rational human being to be a cruel and uncaring monster.

However, if you had a parent, partner or child who was suffering a terminal illness in absolute agony every minute of every day and they begged you to help them end their lives, you would be charged with murder if you did so. Even if you relieved their suffering for one minute before their illness would have taken their life, you could find yourself spending many years in jail for your act of mercy.


Many people attempt or actually succeed in committing suicide for a number of reasons. In some cases, people are just depressed to the point where they wish to end their lives, but in many instances, their suicide attempts are cries for help. Of course if people are driven to the point of suicide by problems that can be solved, then they deserve all the help our society can offer them.

But ultimately, what has to be determined is - who owns us and who owns our lives? If we are normal sentient adults with all the human rights accorded to us, do we not have the right to end our lives if we so choose? What right does a government have to dictate to us that we must remain alive, no matter how much we want to end our lives for whatever reason?


The main reason that there is legislation barring suicide or assisted death is because of the influence of religious bodies, who claim that biblical doctrine states that human life is sacred and must be preserved at any cost. These organisations, such as Right To Life and the Catholic Church, are amazingly hypocritical when it comes to such matters. For instance, if a woman is giving birth and it is determined that either she or her newborn will die and a choice has to be made as to whose life is to be saved, the Catholics always choose the newborn baby and quite happily watch the mother die, often leaving the child an orphan.

The worst thing about such interference and influence from religious bodies is that none of them can actually show that there is any factual basis for their religious beliefs and that their entire doctrines are not just a steaming pile of superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Unfortunately for society, these religious bodies have managed to gain an inordinate amount of power and it will take time for the human race to shake off their clutches and eradicate such nonsense from having any impact.


In September 2008 at Lourdes in France, the shrine that draws the desperate, sick and dying, who hope for a cure for their incurable diseases by some miracle from an imaginary deity, Pope Benedict XVI gushed out yet another of his completely inane and useless edicts. In an anti-euthanasia diatribe, he stated that people must accept death at "the hour chosen by God."

At the open-air service outside the sanctuary reputed for its curative spring water, some faithful lay on gurneys, tucked into quilts and comforters. A few breathed with oxygen tanks. The Pope administered the sacrament of the sick to 10 people, most in wheelchairs, gently anointing their foreheads and palms with oil.

However, for all his sanctimonious baloney and the stupid rites and rituals that the Catholic clergy uses to maintain power over its gullible followers, the Pope could not exhort his imaginary employer to cure or even relieve the suffering of those unfortunate people. While people endure excruciating agony, racked with pain from cancer and other terminal diseases and wish for speedy deaths to gain ultimate relief, the Vatican vehemently maintains that life must continue to its natural end. The Pope stated that the ill should pray to find "the grace to accept, without fear or bitterness, to leave this world at the hour chosen by God."

Instead of listening to this mealy-mouthed and patently false garbage from an old fool dressed in fancy robes and living like a king on the gullibility of millions of Catholic contributors, those people at Lourdes would be far better off trying to find other cures for their ailments and if there was nothing that could help them, then at least they could opt for a painless and easy death by euthanasia. But as long as there are people who prefer to believe in imaginary friends and listen to pompous twits in fancy robes who spout sanctimonious nonsense, people will suffer needlessly.


Possibly the very worst case of human suffering possible is what is known as "locked-in syndrome" - a situation mostly caused by severe stroke. When a person suffers such a stroke, he loses the ability to move a muscle - complete paralysis. Some locked-in syndrome sufferers manage to move something like an eyelid to blink, but many of them just lie there, completely conscious, but completelyt locked into their immobile bodies.

Not even being imprisoned in the worst jail in the world could equate to the incredible predicament of a person trapped completely in their own body, lying there being only able to think. Most people in this situation would quickly go insane. However, there have been cases of people with locked-in syndrome being able to communicate by blinking and demanding to be euthanased to put them out of this horrendous misery and mental torture. The usual response has been that euthanasia is illegal and thus the locked-in people must remain trapped in their body prisons until they die.

In August 2012, one of the most inhumane court decisions in Britain condemned two sufferers of locked-in syndrome to spend the rest of their lives in a state that no sane person would want to impose on another human being. Read this report - it will horrify you.


August 2012 - The Guardian - Britain

Two severely disabled victims of locked-in syndrome have protested angrily that judges are leaving them to undignified and increasingly distressing lives after they lost a landmark high court battle to be allowed to die with medical help.

Tony Nicklinson, 58, who had sought to end his "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable" life after he was left paralysed below the neck following a stroke seven years ago, wept uncontrollably after the judgment and said it meant his anguish would continue.

As he and his wife announced they would appeal, Nicklinson, via a computer, said: "I believe the legal team are prepared to go all the way, but it means yet another period of physical discomfort and mental anguish for me."

Another locked-in syndrome sufferer, who can only be named as Martin, had sought permission for volunteers to help him get to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. "I wish to be able to exercise the freedom which everyone else would have to decide how to end this constant tortuous situation," Martin said in a statement issued by his lawyers.

In a serious blow to pro-euthanasia campaigners, judges said that while the cases were deeply moving and deserved the most careful and sympathetic consideration, the questions they raised were too significant to be decided upon in a court and could only be answered by parliament.

Lord Justice Toulson said that allowing the two men to be helped to end their lives would have implications far beyond their cases and a ruling in Nicklinson's case in particular would have amounted to a major change in murder laws which exceeded the powers of the courts.

"It is not for the court to decide whether the law about assisted dying should be changed and, if so, what safeguards should be put in place," he said.

"Under our system of government these are matters for parliament to decide, representing society as a whole, after parliamentary scrutiny, and not for the court on the facts of an individual case or cases."

Nicklinson sought assurance that it would not be unlawful for a doctor to assist him to die, or a declaration that the current law on murder or assisted suicide was incompatible with his right for respect for his private life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

Lawyers for Martin sought a court order to force the director of public prosecutions (DPP) to clarify whether health professionals willing to assist him to kill himself via Dignitas would be "more likely than not" to face prosecution in England, and further assurances that professionals would not risk disciplinary proceedings.

Rejecting all the applications made by both men, Lord Justice Toulson said that to grant Nicklinson's requests would require a major change in the law while Martin's requests would require the DPP to go beyond his legal role. In a lengthy judgment Mr Justice Royce added that the cases gave rise to "the most profound ethical, moral, religious and social" issues.

"No one could fail to be deeply moved by the terrible predicament faced by these men struck down in their prime and facing a future bereft of hope," he said. "Some will say the judges must step in to change the law. Some will be sorely tempted to do so. But the short answer is that to do so here would be to usurp the function of parliament in this classically sensitive area."

In upsetting scenes following the judgment Nicklinson's wife, Jane, stood by her husband at their home in Melksham as he shook with sobs. She described the judgment as one-sided and disappointing.

"All the points that we put forward have just really been ignored, it seems. You can see from Tony's reaction he's absolutely heartbroken. We always knew it was a big ask but we always hoped that the judges would see sense, but clearly they haven't."

They hoped to organise an appeal hearing before the end of the year and if that failed, she said, "Tony either has to carry on like this until he dies from natural causes or by starving himself".

After the ruling, Nicklinson said in a statement issued by his lawyer that he was devastated by the decision.

"Although I didn't want to raise my hopes it happened anyway, because a fantastic amount of work went into my case and I thought that if the court saw me as I am, utterly miserable with my life, powerless to do anything about it because of my disability, then the judges would accept my reasoning that I do not want to carry on and should be able to have a dignified death," he said.

"I am saddened that the law wants to condemn me to a life of increasing indignity and misery."

Speaking for Nicklinson, Paul Bowen QC said: "Tony has now had almost seven years to contemplate his situation. With the continuing benefits of 21st-century health and social care, his life expectancy can be expected to be normal: another 20 years or more. He does not wish to live that life."

He was being condemned to live without dignity by the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia, which did not stop the "widespread practice of euthanasia, but has forced it underground", he said.

Unlike Nicklinson, Martin wanted volunteers to help him make plans to end his life, but under recent guidelines from the DPP only family members or close friends motivated by compassion are deemed unlikely to be prosecuted for assisting a suicide.

Martin's wife has said that she could not be involved in his death, while respecting his wishes and wanting to remain by his side "to the end".

His lawyers said they would now discuss with their client whether to launch an appeal. In a statement released by his lawyer, Martin said that he felt "even more angry and frustrated" following the judgment.

"My life following my stroke is undignified, distressing and intolerable. I wish to be able to exercise the freedom which everyone else would have: to decide how to end this constant tortuous situation."

The ruling was welcomed by "pro-life" campaigners. Dr Andrew Fergusson, of Care Not Killing, said the judgment had come as no surprise as it had been described in court as a "full-frontal assault on the law of murder".

"[The ruling] confirms the simple truth that the current law exists to protect those without a voice: the disabled, terminally ill and elderly, who might otherwise feel pressured into ending their lives."

Paul Tully, general secretary of the group SPUC Pro-Life, said: "We welcome the high court's ruling and we question whether those who have encouraged Mr Nicklinson and Martin to pursue this legal action have the best interests of disabled people at heart. We urge those around them to rise to the challenge of helping them realise their value and overcome their sense of hopelessness. We trust that today's judgment will help end the insidious campaign in the British courts to change the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia."

The pro-euthanasia campaigner Dr Antony Lempert, a GP and chairman of the Secular Medical Forum, said the decision left Nicklinson with a terrible choice. "Because other people regard his tortured life as somehow sacred, or are fearful of societal consequences, he is forced to endure his suffering or take desperate measures to end it.

"With no hope now of a quick release, he must choose between this torment and the torment of allowing his family to stand by and watch him starve himself to death."

The good news was that only a few days after this ludicrous judgement was made, Nicklinson died at home on 22 August 2012 and achieved what he wanted without having to beg somebody to put him out of his misery.

One has to wonder if any of those stupid bastards from the Pro-Life movements would exchange places with Nicklinson or Martin and endure just one lousy day being immobilised and trapped in their bodies, unable to do the slightest thing except maybe blink. They would go insane in a few hours. But that is exactly what these idiots support - condemning these victims to a daily life of utter hell.

If I were the partner, friend or relative of a person with locked-in syndrome, I would not even waste my time going to plead a case before a court. I would simply do something to humanely end the life of the sufferer and very proudly wear the consequences with pride and to hell with these utter bastards from the Pro-Life movements who would have people suffer in this way.


It is clear to see that the law is an ass. In Australia, it is highly illegal to assist people such as locked-in syndrome victims who are suffering unspeakable torture to kill themselves. However, it is NOT illegal to tell people how to do it and provide general suicide techniques. The problem is that many people who want to die, such as locked-in victims, cannot commit suicide by themselves.

It is also not illegal to express one's own thoughts as to how to help somebody die, even though actually helping them physically would be considered to be murder. So these are my personal thoughts on the best and most painless way how I would kill somebody who wanted to die.

I would merely place an airtight plastic bag over the victim's head and draw the mouth of it around his neck so that no air can come in or out. I would ensure that it was not so tight that it would leave any marks on the victim's neck. Within 15 minutes, the victim will be dead, axphyxiated by his lack of oxygen. Then the bag can be removed literally without leaving a mark if I had been careful. I would then incinerate the bag completely and flush the ashes down the toilet.

I would go away and establish an alibi. I would also ensure that somebody else finds the body many hours later and reports it to the authorities. A coroner or pathologist would not be able to pinpoint the exact time of death anyway. So that's the way I would do it and stating this here is not a crime. If somebody reads this and uses this method to put somebody out of their misery, I salute them.


I am a very happy human being and enjoy my life to the utmost. But if I was stricken with a terminal illness such as cancer, that was killing me with the pain and suffering getting worse every day, I would not want to continue down this path and prolong the agony. I would certainly do something about it when I felt that I could not cope with the increasing suffering. I make no apology for saying that I would ensure that I had the means to commit suicide at the appropriate time of my choosing and I would indeed kill myself.

I believe that I have the ultimate right to choose whether I live or die and no religious organisation, government or legislation will dictate to me that I have to suffer needlessly to satisfy the stupid beliefs of the Right To Life crowd or some politicians who think that they know better than me about my own well-being.

The worst situation that I can envisage is if I suffered from a terminal illness that completely incapacitated me, such as motor neurone disease. It is dreadful to see people with this illness who are literally trapped in their bodies, unable to do anything whatsoever, but knowing that in the end they will die by literally suffocating because their body just shuts down. Many people with this disease beg their partners or the authorities to end their suffering, but of course the authorities do nothing and if their partners assist them in committing suicide, they are charged with murder.


The greatest act of kindness that the loved ones of a person suffering the horrendous pain and agony of a terminal illness and begging to die, would be to grant them the ultimate relief from this. I would expect that my loved ones would have the courage to end my life, should I be in that position and ask them to assist, if I could not end my life by myself.

What really makes me very angry is the realisation that a dog would never be treated as badly as a human being. A person allowing an animal to needlessly suffer in terminal agony would be arrested and charged with cruelty if that animal was not euthanased. A person allowing a loved one to needlessly suffer in terminal agony would be charged with murder if they assisted in their euthanasing. This situation is so preposterous that it beggars belief.


The problem in our society is that vast resources are spent to keep people alive, who are nothing more than complete non-sentient vegetables. It is understandable to preserve human life, even when people are born disabled to a high degree, because even they can somehow enjoy a certain quality of life. Some severely disabled people have made enormous contributions to the world, such as scientist Stephen Hawkins. However, there is a category of people who I believe are simply not worth keeping alive, generally because they are so damaged that they do not even know that they exist. However, due to religious and societal pressure, they are artificially kept alive, chewing up massive resources and destroying the lives of their families. I have seen many examples of this.

92 year old woman with advanced dementia kept alive

For instance I know of a case where a 92 year old woman suffered a stroke and was literally dying. Doctors managed to revive her, put her on life support and for the next five years, she lay in hospital until she finally passed away at the age of 97. During that time, this woman, who was already suffering with advanced dementia and had absolutely no idea who she was or had any awareness of her deteriorating situation, tied up the valuable resources of a hospital by occupying a bed, being hooked up to expensive life support equipment and having nursing care around the clock, because for those 5 years, she had to be bathed in bed, lifted out so that her sheets could be changed, monitored for physical signs, fed intravenously and all the other requirements that had to be provided to keep her alive.

But was this very elderly woman alive? Of course her body was being artificially kept alive and her heart was forced to keep pumping blood, but even before she had the stroke, she was completely unaware of mostly anything, due to her dementia. She was 92 years old, had lived a long and mostly fruitful life and had already exceeded her normal life expectancy. However, because she had been kept alive for no good reason, it cost the nation a fortune in medical care and it devastated this woman's also elderly daughter, who had to contend with dealing with the fact that her mother was still alive and had to visit the hospital constantly. This and many similar cases demonstrate the utter futility and stupidity of keeping people in this position alive, instead of just letting them slip away into death and giving their families a final closure.

Complete vegetable kept alive and destroying a family

Another case that brought to mind the utter futility of preserving life that was not worth preserving was seen at a place where I worked in August 2008. I observed a couple with a 10 year old boy in a wheelchair, which was equipped with an oxygen supply and other life support devices. The child was literally a complete vegetable, totally unaware of his environment, his parents and anything else. He was just a piece of protoplasm that was barely breathing and would have died if his life support was removed. I could see the abject pain on the faces of his parents every time they looked at him. This boy was incapable of eating, excreting or doing anything without assistance and it was obvious that his parents suffered every day in taking care of a son who was not even aware that he was alive, let alone have parents.

What should have happened was that when the obstetrician delivered this child at birth, an immediate assessment should have been made as to his viability and his expected quality of life. In this particular case, the boy was so severely disabled that he had absolutely no hope whatsoever of leading any sort of meaningful existence and would not have survived more than a few hours after his birth, had doctors not immediately put him on intensive life support. The boy was physically and mentally damaged completely beyond salvage and should have just been left to pass away, giving his parents much grief at the time, but at least giving them a chance to get on with their lives and most probably have another child who was normal.

However, by keeping this hopelessly unviable child alive for so many years on life support, the parents have had their lives completely destroyed. Obviously they have not been able to travel, at least one of them cannot work because of the constant attendance that their child needs around the clock and they are reduced to poverty because of the massive expenses in keeping their child alive for no good reason. At the end of the day, nothing good has come out of this for anybody except the sanctimonious religious bastards who feel good because they have had laws passed that compel doctors to keep people alive under any circumstances, no matter how this completely ruins the lives of others.


It is absolutely immoral in every sense of the word to force those who wish to die to stay alive, such as people who are incapable of committing suicide by their own hand. Many people who are completely incapacitated, such as motor neurone disease sufferers and quadriplegics, wish to end their misery, being trapped in a body they no longer control and exist each day in a living hell. But because of influence from religious bodies and other idiots, who claim that people must keep living, regardless of their constant misery, because of some completely irrational and unprovable concept that life is God-given and sacred, people who wish to die in dignity are denied this right.

Fortunately, with the help of compassionate people such as euthanasia advocate Dr Phillip Nitschke and organisations such as Swiss clinic Dignitas, people suffering horrendous debilitating diseases and syndromes can be assisted to permanently escape their nightmares. Here is one account that highlights the utter stupidity of British assisted suicide laws that prevent people who are suffering, but are incapable of ending their lives themselves, to get assistance from others to end their misery. Here is the story of a young man who found a way around these idiotic laws.

Daniel James beat stupid British assisted suicide laws

While playing rugby, 22-year-old Daniel James suffered a collapsed spine in a scrum during a training session at Nuneaton Rugby Club in March 2007 and was paralysed from the chest down. Eighteen months later, he died on 12 September 2008 in a Swiss assisted suicide clinic where he had travelled with the intention of killing himself.

His parents said that their son had tried several times to kill himself before he gained his wish and stated that he did not want to live a second-class existence. Describing him as an intelligent young man of sound mind, they said that his death was a welcome relief from the prison he felt his body had become and the day-to-day fear and loathing of his living existence. This was the last way that the family wanted Dan's life to end but he was an intelligent, strong-willed and determined young man. They stated that over the last six months, he constantly expressed his wish to die and was determined to achieve this in some way.

Assisted suicide is illegal in Britain, although the practice is tolerated by the authorities in Switzerland. The clinic Dignitas is where all known British assisted suicides have taken place. Daniel James is believed to be the youngest person from Britain to have gone to Switzerland to take his own life, according to a spokesman for Dignity in Dying.

So why on earth should people like Daniel James, who was a rugged healthy sportsman studying for an engineering degree, be forced to stay alive for decades, suffering being trapped in their own bodies, unable to move, unable to do the slightest thing for themselves if they do not want to keep living? Why should people be forced to live such a hell because of moronic and unfounded religious beliefs? If a person had a dog that was paralysed and in pain, he would be prosecuted for animal cruelty if he didn't have that animal euthanased as quickly as possible to relieve its misery, but if that person assisted somebody who was permanently disabled and in constant pain, either physical or mental, who was begging for help to die, that person would be charged with murder. This is so idiotic and cruel, that it is simply beyond belief.


Not only is it illegal to commit suicide or help somebody do this, often various entities try to force somebody who is just dying of an illness, to stay alive against their wishes. For instance, as stupid as they are, because of their religious beliefs, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to undergo blood transfusions to save their lives. Then there are those who try by legal means, such as court orders, to force people to undergo surgery against their express wishes, to keep them alive. This is a disgrace and a complete violation of people's rights to control their own lives.

Teenager decides to die at home after beating legal threat

A terminally ill 13-year-old girl has won the right to die at home, after persuading a hospital not to pursue a High Court case that would have forced her to undergo a risky heart transplant. Hannah Jones said that she would prefer to spend her remaining days in the care of her family rather than risk dying in hospital. She was fed up with being cooped up in hospital wards for much of the past eight years since being diagnosed with leukaemia and crippling cardiomyopathy, that she declared enough was enough.

"They explained everything to me but I just didn't want to go through any more operations," Hannah said. "I'd had enough of hospitals and wanted to come home." Parents Andrew and Kirsty, an intensive care nurse, said they were disgusted by the initial decision to pursue the case. "Hannah had been through enough already and to have the added stress of a possible court hearing or being forcibly taken into hospital is disgraceful," Jones said.

But the family received a telephone call from Hereford Hospital warning it could apply for a High Court order to admit her. A Herefordshire-Primary Care Trust spokesman refused to explain why it had considered legal action.

How on earth a court can force a person to undergo surgery is totally beyond me. And how dare a hospital interfere in the private lives of people like this? If a person does not wish to have an operation, then it should be entirely up to them. It is one thing to conduct surgery on a newborn baby with a dangerous defect in order to save its life. It is something else entirely to try to force rational thinking people to have surgery, even if it will save their lives, if they do not want it.


The laws on suicide, euthanasia and mercy death need to be completely changed or repealed. If Australia is to be considered a humane and merciful nation, then the practice of forcing terminally ill people or completely insentient vegetables to stay alive and prolonging their suffering and the agony of those around them needlessly needs to be stopped. If any of these religious Right-To-Life hypocrites declare that it is God's command to keep people alive under any circumstance, let them firstly prove that this God actually exists. Until then, they should shut the hell up and mind their own business.


There are a number of good avenues available for people who want to know more about euthanasia. Dr Philip Nitschke has been at the forefront of trying to get the Australian Government to legalise euthanasia, however those groups of sanctimonious fools, who so erroneously claim to have imaginary friends, have stymied his efforts to allow people with terminal illnesses and other severe disabilities to arrange their deaths with dignity.

Those religious bastards, who have no compunction about promoting their fantasies about a god that cannot be proven to exist, but would rather see people in terrible agony suffer needlessly, have even managed to get the government to pass legislation to prohibit the draft, distribution and access of information about assisted suicide, in particular on the Internet.

I consider that this stupid and draconian law impinges on my right to access information that is freely available and there are a number of international treaties to which Australia is a signatory that guarantee this right to me. Therefore I have no compunction in going to any website I choose to look at anything I want to see, including information on euthanasia, assisted suicide or anything else. Furthermore, I believe I have the right as a matter of public interest, to inform people about the availability of any information that interests me, so here a few relevant websites about this subject.