Donate SIGN UP

Harold Shipman Documentary

Avatar Image
Smowball | 21:52 Thu 26th Apr 2018 | Film, Media & TV
69 Answers
Apart from being utterly gobsmacked at how many people he murdered, they’ve just said he was 56 when he was convicted. Am shocked - he looked at least 15 years older. And it still hasn’t said why he killed all those people.
Gravatar

Answers

41 to 60 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Smowball. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I believe Jeffrey Archer had a following inside too..as a writer of letters...
^ I heard Archer used to write letters for other inmates who were illiterate .
If you are at all interested in the reality of prison,rather than what you hear on TV and in films, you can not do better than read Archer's 3 'Prison Diaries ' They really do 'tell it like it is'. From high security to open conditions he went through it all.
( he went through it all ) I hope so, he's a criminal who happens to be an author .
I rather think white collar crime such as Archer's is not in the same league as serial killer !!
bednobs....."double effect?"
Never heard of it.
Archer's downfall was committing perjury in denying that he had paid off a prostitute.
feel sorry for the "fragrant " Mary..
i am surprised sqad, that you have never hear of the doctrine of double effect. However, i guess it's just more known in the palliative world, rather than the surgical world, It's more to do with ethics than law i suppose
OK......perhaps you could explain it to me over a candlelit meal some evening ;-)
//The doctrine of double effect. This doctrine says that if doing something morally good has a morally bad side-effect it's ethically OK to do it providing the bad side-effect wasn't intended. This is true even if you foresaw that the bad effect would probably happen.\\
Thanks Jack..............bit too clever for sqaddy boy ;-)
you want the candlelit dinner jack?
Basically it means it's moraly ok to give someone a large dose of morphine to help with pain even if you think it's likely the person will die at the end of the needle
bednobs......yes! yes! I understand that...BUT ...if the next of kin take legal action against you, would there be a case to answer?
When my dad was dying he had loads of oral morphine in the house. We were told he could have it whenever he wanted it.

I assume there are different strengths of it though.
Basically physicians know that continually upping doses of morphine will inevitably shorten life although that is not their intention.
// .bit too clever for sqaddy boy //

well it shouldnt be - it was the basis for the acquittal of Dr bodkin adams - 1957

and makes perfect sense
you are giving morphine to deal with pain
and the shortening of life is an unwanted second effect

' the law on this is very clear. It starts off with the famous direction to the jury by Devlin J in Bodkin Adams and it has been taken up in a number of subsequent authorities: that, if the primary purpose, as here, is to treat properly and to reduce pain, the incidental consequence of shortening of life is perfectly acceptable, medically, ethically and legally." '

Devlin 50 y later then said he thought Bodkin Adams had done it - but so what - a judge can be wrong and frrequently are !
// that you have never hear of the doctrine of double effect. //

but he heard the words as - - - "have another gin - it will have a double effect......." - and thought yeah good idea and rather missed it was a legal case
Nurse Dorothea Waddington (1936) wasn't so lucky.
// Archer's downfall was committing perjury in denying that he had paid off a prostitute.//

yeah perjury because a perverse verdict had been brought in and had to be reversed etc - before it comes to court, you get done for perverting the course of justice
Penalty starts at 2 y in gaol ! oo-er mrs!

and in his case - the perjured document was an affidavit which was sworn but not used in court ( apparently )

today in the high court - s/o has been found guilty of contempt of court in making a false claim against an NHS hospital ( oo-er even more Mrs!)
eek !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Waddingham

as sqad said so eloquently - never 'eard of her - who's she then ?

DW does seem to have well you know er killed people....

41 to 60 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Harold Shipman Documentary

Answer Question >>

Related Questions