Decisions

A few days ago, film director Tony Scott committed suicide by jumping off a bridge in America. Initial reports indicated his primary reason for doing so was that he had an inoperable brain tumour, but that story is currently being brought into doubt. Whatever the reason was, Scott made a decision that was his alone to make, regardless of how grim it must be to have those life-ending thoughts. It’s a decision that last week was again denied to Tony Nicklinson, a man in England who has locked-in syndrome (he is virtually unable to consciously perform any bodily movements by himself); the British courts decided that to issue a ruling allowing doctors to assist suicide for those who are unable to help themselves, and avoid prosecution for it, was not for judges to decide upon. So if a doctor attempted to help Mr Nicklinson - and it would be help - they could still be arrested for murder. How preposterous! Judges and politicians alike are continually afraid to make moral decisions for fear of a reactionary (and probably religious) backlash - shame on them! But they can still manage to make controversial decisions where international political prisoners / asylum-seekers are concerned. Yes, Julian Assange will be ingloriously deported by the British government if he dares to step outside of the Ecuadorian embassy. And rest assured this has very little to do with sexual allegations from Sweden; Ecuador was happy to release Assange into Swedish custody as soon as assurances were given that it would not be followed by deportation to America for a Wikileaks trial (where even the death penalty could be considered!), but no such assurances were ever even negotiated by the British Foreign Office. Nowadays I usually have great respect for the U.S. government under President Obama, but the witch-hunt for Assange has got way out of hand.
How is it that so many decisions seem to be going so badly wrong? Or should I simply not be surprised anymore?