Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, has told the media this afternoon:
“There are no reports that Thomas ever expressed any wish to die. Like Tony Bland, who survived the Hillsborough football stadium tragedy but was later killed by his doctors, Thomas Inglis’ killing was non-voluntary euthanasia.Comments on this blog? Email them to email@example.com
“Frances Inglis called her son’s life a ‘living hell,’ and claimed he was in ‘constant pain’. These are phrases that we often hear about disabled people, when others want to impose a ‘right to die’ on them. This reflects the fact that voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are two sides of the same coin. In either case, the key fact is that the person doing the killing regards the victim as better off dead. This is unacceptable.
“It is most regrettable that Miranda Moore QC, the prosecution's lawyer, seems to have accepted, without evidence, that when people like Thomas Inglis were killed it ‘put them out of their misery’. Nevertheless, she secured a conviction, which is some recompense for those who, like Thomas, are unable to communicate their feelings freely.
“Some media reports have evoked great sympathy for Mrs Inglis, but in highlighting her conflicted feelings, they are masking other important facts.
“The jury has shown great courage in bringing a verdict according to the evidence."
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy