Locked-In, In More Ways Than One

The chances are that you’ve already heard of the case being put forward by the family of 58-year-old Tony Nicklinson. Tony suffers from a syndrome known as locked-in syndrome. This syndrome arose due to the fact that he had a stroke that left him paralysed everywhere, but his mind still functions perfectly.

As a result of his injuries, he can now only communicate through a special computer. This computer monitors his eye movements and allows him to speak. The case being put forward is that he wants it to be made legal for a doctor to allow him to die, but the government has said that this will authorise murder.

Tony Nicklinson
Tony Nicklinson

On one hand, the government is right. Such a system would be open to corruption from dodgy doctors and those who would happily kill off ailing relatives in an attempt to claim what they have without waiting. Yes, this corruption would be there, but it’s also something that has to be worked around. You can’t just accept that nothing can be done about corruption. You can’t just accept this and refuse to implement a better system because of it.

What the government is essentially doing is condemning Mr. Nicklinson to years and years of misery at the hands of locked-in syndrome. And make no mistake, he’s not ill. What irritates him is the fact that he’s still perfectly healthy and he will live for years and years to come. And he will have to live like that for the rest of his life. That’s why he wants to die, but why shouldn’t he be allowed to die? Switzerland has a system where people can get doctors to kill them, a process known as euthanasia.

We have the basic human right that we have a right to life, so surely we also have the right to die? I’m quite frankly sick of the rubbish from the past that says that every life is sacred. No, it’s not. Life is not sacred. It’s just a life like every other animal on the planet. They are our lives. And our lives are something that we should be able to end if we feel like it. Suicide is now legal under the Suicide Act of 1961, and with the excellent safeguards against malpractice in euthanasia other countries have in place, it is an antiquated idea that it should be illegal. It’s unfair and it’s just plain wrong. It’s almost as if it’s admitting that the government has control over our lives.

This case of locked-in syndrome comes just after another case where an anorexic woman from Wales, who wanted to die, ended up in court. The terrifying thing is that even though the woman wished to die, the judge ruled against her and declared that she must be force-fed to prevent her death.

Now we are not only avoiding the issue, we are actively working against it.

Justice

Planet Earth LIVE – not quite so ‘LIVE’ though

It’s been two weeks since we were able to see the final Planet Earth Live on our television screens. We had Top Gear legend Richard Hammond presenting live from Kenya throughout the programme with updates from Julia Bradbury based in North America. It was billed as a truly epic piece of television, and one that would be talked about for years and years as a pioneer of wildlife television. I found it fascinating. It was truly a beautiful series, but it wasn’t all that innovative.In fact, the only live parts of it were from Hammond and Bradbury during their pieces to camera. The rest? Well, that was all pre-recorded.

The most important aspect of a series like this is the animals. Wild animals in their surroundings, allowing us to see just how stunning animals across the globe really are. Whilst we were able to witness said animals in their natural environment, it wasn’t live, as many people thought it would and should have been. In fact, we saw the animals throughout various clips that had been edited for time purposes and to show only the best parts – some may argue this is good as it cuts out the boring parts, while others, myself included, think that is what makes it so unique. Seeing the animals interacting in such a way, during a live piece of television really would have captivated my imagination and made me want to see more.

Instead, what we got was two presenters, simply interjecting between some stunning videography. To be fair, the presenters were there to stitch the story together, and I understand that. But to have the best part of the programme pre-recorded, and the less important part filmed live seems to really baffle me – the animals should have been the stars, not the presenters.

I’m not stupid, and I do understand that to perhaps capture the important moments in the world of these animals is time-consuming and the camera operators would need to be extremely patient. This goes some way to explaining lack of live action we got to see as viewers. Many viewers took to social networking site Twitter to air their disappointment with Planet Earth Live. A selection of these tweets can be found below:

Lauren Grandidge@LaurenisGrand – ‘Really trying to give #planetearthlive a second go but find it less informative and more patronising. And wish RH would stop with the hands!’

Danny Brooke@DaRkDaN89 – ‘This Planet Earth Live is pointless. It’s not ‘live’ it’s presented ‘live’ the content is all pre-recorded :/’

Jordan Harkness@_jordanharkness – ‘That Planet Earth Live is a farce. 70% of it is in fact, not live.’

Simon@MrFlibble81 – ‘This Planet Earth Live show is not very “live” is it, I’ve seen about 30 seconds of live footage so far, & that’s all been Hammond talking!!’

Twitter is an important tool for media, and this shows why. Producers can really sense audience reaction to their products. In this case, I think it’s important to note that if Planet Earth Live is commissioned for a second series, then it needs to really live up to its tag of being ‘live’; featuring more animals in their environment during live shots, and capturing  some truly stunning aspects on live television. That way, viewers could really enjoy the programme a lot more, and really become immersed in the magic of the beautiful environments featured throughout.

It’s important to flip this argument though; does it really matter that it isn’t live? Surely, if we have access to the stunning footage we do, then why should it matter? Some users on Twitter also tweeted their reactions to the show.

Khalid A Shah@KShah_K – ‘BBC’s #PlanetEarthLive is truly a great show. Don’t know why the presenters try dramatise it, the animals manage that all on their own.’

Hadleigh@hadleigh_x – ‘Despite 95% of the programme not actually being live, Planet Earth Live is rather entertaining’

Dave Peat@davepeat86 – ‘Planet Earth Live is not a bad watch, seriously lacking David Attenborough though! #legend

It’s obvious to see that some viewers feel that the sheer beauty of the animals, surroundings and the unprecedented access to such beautiful animals around the world is all that matters, not whether it is live or not. I just wonder why the BBC pushed for the live aspect so much, if they weren’t truly going to honour what viewers would have wanted.