Do prisoners have human rights in prison?![]() In 2015, Sebastian was convicted of being a member of an illegal terrorist organisation that attempted a bombing in London. He was 17 years old. At the time of his trial, Sebastian was diagnosed with depression and suicidal tendencies. He was put on specialist medication and recommended for juvenile detention with extra supervision and educational and recreational programmes. Due to a shortage of space, Sebastian was detained in an adult prison. He was not provided with any medical care for his psychological problems. He made repeated suicide attempts. After each attempt, he was forced to strip to his underwear and confined to his cell for seven days. He was often taunted by the prison guards that his suicide attempts were half hearted cries for attention. Sebastian and his Solicitor made several requests to meet with the prison governor to discuss his issues and be transferred to a juvenile prison. In July 2016, Sebastian was working in the prison garden when a disturbance broke out amongst the prisoners. Several prison guards were deployed to control the situation. During this disturbance, Sebastian was kicked repeatedly in the stomach and hit on the head with a prison officer baton. Sebastian was physically restrained and taken back to his cell. Sebastian was found dead in his cell five hours later. A post mortem showed he had several injuries to his body primarily located around his abdomen and head but that he had died from blood loss resulting from a severe head injury. Sebastian’s parents were informed of their son’s death 10 days after he died. They were informed that the prison had carried out an investigation. They were provided with a brief report indicating that Sebastian had taken his own life. Sebastian’s parents have discovered that the prison guards on duty at the time were not interviewed or required to give any evidence as to the events of the disturbance or events thereafter. Advise Sebastian’s parents regarding Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR in relation to their son's death. Sebastian v UK This essay seeks to advise Sebastian’s parents regarding Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), which states that every human has a right to life, and shall not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in relation to their son’s death; and will ultimately conclude whether the State is liable for not fulfilling their duty of care owed. S6 of the Human Rights Act(HRA) imposes a duty on all public authorities to act compatibly with all convention rights. Sebastian’s parents can bring the claim of his death similarly to the case of McCann and others v UK which was permitted to be brought by immediate family. Article 3 of the ECHR is to be discussed first since it questions whether Sebastian was subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment when he was alive. Article 3 is an absolute right and is not subject to any derogations or limitations under the ECHR (Ireland v UK). The negative and positive obligations of the state under article 3 are to be discussed. The negative obligation states that it is an absolute duty not to commit torture or cause inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The positive duty by the state, which is not absolute, questions whether the state took reasonable steps to prevent individuals from being subject to proscribed treatment. To discuss whether negative and positive obligations stated in article 3 were undertaken by the state, the facts must be applied. The state failed in its negative obligation not to subject Sebastian to inhuman and degrading treatment; this is acknowledged by the facts stating that he was subjected to a strip search and confined to his cell after each suicide attempt, he was kicked repeatedly in the stomach and hit on the head with a police officer’s baton and he was physically restrained and taken back to his cell, where he consequently died for untreated injuries. It can be concluded that the state also failed in its positive obligation to take any reasonable steps to protect Sebastian from suffering inhuman or degrading treatment both in failing to provide him with specialist care and extra supervision, thus leading to his death. It can be seen in the case of (Napier v Scottish Ministries) that the state owes prisoners a duty of care. The prison authorities further ignored the suicide attempts made by Sebastian describing them as him merely seeking attention despite him being diagnosed with depression and suicidal tendencies. The state has therefore failed to safeguard the physical and psychological well-being of Sebastian. Article 2 of the ECHR which states that all individuals have a right to life is to be discussed. It can be questioned whether the state has failed in its substantive obligation on account of the death of Sebastian during detention or whether the state failed under its procedural obligations in regards to the investigation into the circumstances which led to Sebastian’s death. (Jordan v UK) is referenced regarding the criteria for the effectiveness of the state investigation, if the investigation meets the strict requirements of effectiveness and if the investigation was carried out with the requisite diligence and efficiency. The scope of Article 2 states that there is a duty not to take life, a duty to safeguard life and an obligation to investigate deaths. (R(Middleton) v HM Coroner West Somerset). Article 2(1) is an absolute right, it states that everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. Regarding Article 2(2) it can be questioned whether the state failed in its obligation with respect to the force used and if it had been ‘no more than absolutely necessary’ and justified by the exceptions stated in Article 2(2). Force was used by the state to quell a riot is an exception permitted by statute under Article 2(2), and as such was used in the circumstances. Examining the situation, one must consider whether the force used was ‘no more than absolutely necessary’ given the conditions and must be strictly proportionate to it. In (Mc Cann and others v UK) the court stated that the test to use with regards to lethal force must be absolutely necessary, a term meaning that a stricter or more compelling test of necessity must be employed than that normally applicable when determining whether state action is ‘necessary in a democratic society’; in this case, Police officers had killed terrorists on the perception that there was an existence of danger to the public of an imminent attack, however they were unarmed at the time of their death. The examination of the substantive obligation by the state is satisfied. A procedural obligation is required by the state to initiate an effective public investigation by an independent official body into the death of the individual. ECHR case law has established that investigations must be undertaken promptly and expeditiously. (McCann and others v UK & Osman v UK) It is also seen in (Jordan v UK) that investigation must meet the requirements of effectiveness. State authorities have failed to carry out an effective and thorough investigation, furthermore, the family of Sebastian was neither informed nor involved in the investigation. The involvement of the family to a state investigation has been established as a key order to determine if the state has carried out an effective investigation and has therefore complied with its procedural obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR. It should be concluded that if an accurate and thorough investigation had taken place, certain key factors would have been brought to light leading to the state being liable for the death of Sebastian, including: the treatment of the prisoners on behalf of the prison officers, (Tali v Estonia) can be noted since similarly they were both treated inhumanely, and that Sebastian was a Juvenile, (Guvec v Turkey) where it should be emphasised the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment given the age of the prisoner. It should also be noted that contrary to the post mortem, the brief document provided by the investigators had falsified and vague information regarding Sebastian’s death.
0 Comments
Should the law permit terminally ill patients to end their lives?![]() “Provided that a person has capacity then the principle of sanctity of life must yield to autonomous self-determination in respect of refusal of life-saving medical treatment. A competent person's refusal must be obeyed even if patently contrary to her own best interests (as objectively assessed) and even if it is plain that an adverse outcome may result...”[1] This essay seeks to examine the law on assisted suicide in England and Wales, as well as a clear analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of introducing legislation where terminally ill individuals are permitted to end their lives; it will ultimately conclude whether or not England and Wales should introduce legislation permitting assisted suicide for terminally ill individuals. Physician Assisted suicide and Euthanasia are two methods in which terminally ill patients can end their lives. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma.[2] Euthanasia is regarded as manslaughter or murder and is punishable by law with a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment.[3] Euthanasia can be seen as ‘mercy killing’. Physician assisted suicide is where a doctor provides lethal drugs to a terminally ill, mentally competent adult, making the choice of their own free will and after meeting with strict legal safeguard, can commit suicide.[4] Assisted suicide is illegal under the terms of the Suicide Act [1961] and is punishable by law with up to 14 years imprisonment.[5] Assisted suicide is seen as encouraging someone to kill themselves. The law in England and Wales is quite inconsistent in terms of Assisted Suicide. In 1961, the Suicide Act (SA [1961]) was passed, S. (1) SA [1961] states that suicide is not a crime,[6] however, a person can be criminally liable for complicity in another person’s suicide if they commit an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and their act was intended to encourage or assist suicide, or an attempt at suicide.[7] Inconsistency occurs because S. 2(1)-(1C) of the SA [1961] was substituted for S. (2A) (1.2.2010) by S. 59(2A) Coroners and Justice Act (CJA) 2009 (c. 25) where the law goes into detail that if the defendant arranges for a person to do an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person and the person does that act, the defendant is also to be treated as having done it. Where the facts are such that an act is not capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide, for the purposes of CJA [2009] it is to be treated as so capable if the act would have been so capable had the facts been as defendant believed them to be at the time of the act or had subsequent events happened in the manner the defendant believed they would happen (or both). A reference in this Act to a person doing an act that is capable of encouraging the suicide or attempted suicide of another person includes a reference to the person doing so by threatening another person or otherwise putting pressure on another person to commit or attempt suicide.[8] S. 10(1) (2) The CJA [2009] also states that “old offence” means an offence under S. 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 as that section had effect before the section 59 commencement date, or an attempt to commit such an offence; and “new offence” means an offence under S. 2(1) SA [1961] as that Act is amended by S. 59 CJA [2009]. Sub-paragraph (3) applies where— a person (“the defendant”) is charged in respect of the same conduct with both an old offence and a new offence, the only thing preventing the defendant from being found guilty of the new offence is the fact that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed wholly after the section 59 commencement date, and the only thing preventing the defendant from being found guilty of the old offence is the fact that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed wholly or partly before the section 59 commencement date.[9] In 2015, Lord Falconers Assisted Dying Bill [2014][10] came to naught due to a lack of time with the impending General Elections in May, 2015 and no progress was made on the Bill. It proposed to permit terminally ill, mentally competent adults to have an assisted death after being approved by two doctors; under the proposal, people with fewer than six months to live could have been prescribed a lethal dose of drugs, which they had to be able to take themselves. The bill was based on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which has permitted assisted dying in Oregon since 1997. [11] MP Rob Marris decided to introduce an Assisted Dying Bill [2015][12] based on the law that had been agreed by the House of Lords earlier that year. Unlike in the House of Lords, where regular debates had been held on assisted dying for many years, this was the first ever debate on an assisted dying law and the first vote on the principle since 1997. The Bill was defeated at its Second Reading in 2015 after four hours of debate because despite 118 MPs being in favour, 330 were against.[13] Opening the debate, Mr. Marris said the current law did not meet the needs of the terminally ill, families or the medical profession. He said there were too many "amateur suicides, and people going to Dignitas- to live with dignity, to die with dignity" and it was time for Parliament to debate the issue because "social attitudes have changed". He added that the bill would offer more protection for the living and more choice for the dying and that he was unsure what choice he would make if he was terminally ill, further stating that it would be comforting to know that the choice was available. The ethical argument states that individuals should have a freedom of choice as to how and when they die, and that they should do so with dignity. Life should only be prolonged for as long as the individual believes it is worth living; someone shouldn’t have to endure intolerable pain and if the quality of their life is severely diminished. Diane Pretty, a British woman suffering from motor neurone disease wished to end her life because of the pains and problems she had endured. She stated that she wanted to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by my family. She attempted to change British law by going before the court and using the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue that the Director of Public Prosecutions should legalize assisted suicide. The House of Lords, turned down her case and so did the European Court of Human Rights when she appealed. She stated that she felt as though she had no rights after her appeal failed. She eventually died in May 2002 as her health deteriorated.[14] Another case that portrayed this same view was R (Nicklinson) V Ministry of Justice; R (On The Application of AM) V The Director of Public Prosecutions [2014].[15] The pragmatic argument states that since euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is allegedly currently occurring, society might as well legalize it and ensure that it is adequately regulated. A retired French teacher, Chantal Sebire had been diagnosed with esthesioneuroblastoma, a rare form of cancer in 2000. In February 2008 she made a public appeal to the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to permit her to die through euthanasia stating that, “One would not allow an animal to go through what I have endured.” However, on March 17th, 2008 she lost her case. March 19, 2008, she was found dead in her home. An autopsy conducted on March 21, 2008 concluded that she did not die of natural causes. Subsequent blood tests revealed a toxic concentration of the drug pentobarbital, a barbiturate that is not available in French pharmacies but is used elsewhere in the world for the purpose of physician assisted suicide.[16] Fiona Bruce, the MP for Congleton- opposing, said the bill was so completely lacking safeguards for the vulnerable that "if this weren't so serious it would be laughable". She concluded that we are here to protect the most vulnerable in our society, not to legislate to kill them. This bill is not merely flawed, it is legally and ethically totally unacceptable. [17] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948][18] guarantees that all individuals have a right to life, liberty, and security of person. The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities promotes respect for the inherent dignity of persons with disabilities. The right to life is enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1976].[19] It can be said that once government and health care services begin killing their own citizens, a dangerous precedent has been set. The outcome can be identified as a ‘slippery slope’. Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide has a range of unforeseen consequences. Legalizing assisted suicide may discourage research into palliative treatments, consequently preventing cures for those with terminally illnesses. Exceedingly ill people, especially the elderly who are in a constant need of care may feel pressured to commit suicide since they may fall as though they are a burden to their family.[20] According to the International Code of Medical Ethics, “A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life.” Legalizing assisted suicide therefore violates one of the most important medical ethics. A doctor’s duty is to preserve human life, thus, asking a doctor to do otherwise can in turn damage the ‘doctor-patient’ relationship. Patients may think that their doctor would rather ‘kill them off’ than take responsibility for a complex and challenging case. The repercussions of hastening death on a regular basis can lead to a lack of compassion towards elderly, incapacitated, or terminally ill individuals, also those with complex and challenging health needs can become sceptical towards their doctor’s efforts and intentions.[21] The mere argument of a right to die, simply implies, a duty to kill. The case of Tony Bland is where judges permitted euthanasia. He was caught in the Hillsborough disaster [1989] which caused him to enter a persistent vegetative state. After three years of life support, the hospital with consent of his parents applied for a declaration to discontinue all life sustaining treatment. The declaration was granted under the terms that withdrawal of treatment is seen as an omission, however since there was no duty to act, given that treatment was not in the best interest of the patient and there were no prospects of his health improving.[22] When confronted with the question of whether or not legislation should be granted for assisted suicide we acknowledge Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, he welcomed the rejection of the legislation, saying the current law existed to protect those who were sick, elderly, depressed or disabled. He said that it protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion, it acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and does not need changing. Consequently, as a society, we must commit ourselves to caring better for patients at life's end. Authorizing doctors to assist suicide is a simple, but far more dangerous than a solution. Legalized assisted suicide has an inconsistent impact on incapacitated people, while everyone else receives suicide prevention, those with incapacities, certain ailments, and old individuals, will obtain a ‘fast pass’ because their lives are regarded as less valuable. Assisted suicide speaks of a fundamental reverence for life and the risk of hurling down a slippery slope toward a diminished respect for life. With legislation in the offing, life and dignity is far more important than death. “Judges are not elected. Therefore they should not make law.”Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.” According to the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, Judges must not challenge the political authority of the Legislature to decide what new laws should be made. The Separation of Powers is a fundamental principle in which each distinct branch, Legislative, Executive and Judicial, can check and balance the other to prevent the concentration of power and guard against tyranny. Montesquieu (1748) said, “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty... there is no liberty if the powers of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive... there would be an end to everything, if the same man or the same body... were to exercise those three powers.”
In the United Kingdom, the Executive comprises of the Sovereign and the Government, including the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers. The role of the Executive branch is to formulate and implement the Policies. Government proposes a Policy which is passed to the Legislative Branch in the form of a Bill. The Crown or Sovereignty accepts and implements the Bill after it has been passed through the Legislative Branch by convention. The Legislature, Parliament, comprises of the Crown, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Legislative Branch creates the law. A Bill is a proposal for a new law or a proposal to amend an existing law, it is presented for debate in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Bill can start at either Houses but must pass through both with a majority acceptance vote. The Legislature can be said to have the most responsibility when it comes to making laws in England and Wales. When a Bill starts it goes through various stages before becoming an Act (Law). The first step is the First Reading, at this stage the Bill considered is read for the first time and is printed. It moves on to the Second Reading where Members of the House debate the Bill’s principle. The Bill is passed on to the Committee stage where Committee members study the Bill, clause by clause. At the Report Stage members of the House can make other amendments. It then passes on to the Third Reading where members debate and vote on the Bill, once there has been a majority vote, the Bill goes to the other House where it follows a similar process. Once the Bill has been accepted by both Houses with a majority vote it goes to the Executive where the Prime Minister accepts the Bill. The last stage is the Royal Assent, which is given by the Sovereign (Queen Elisabeth II) due to convention. The Judiciary comprises of the Judges in the Courts of law (High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lord now known as the Supreme Court since 1st October, 2009), those who hold Judicial Office in tribunals and the Lay Magistrates who staff the Magistrates’ Courts. Judges are selected by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) since 3rd April, 2006 and Judicial appointments are made by the Crown, “Transfer of appointment functions to her Majesty”, listed in Schedule 14 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The Judiciary’s role is to interpret and declare the laws created by the Legislature. Lord Diplock stated in the case Duport Steels V Sirs (1980), “It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the British Constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on the Separation of Powers; Parliament makes the laws, the Judiciary interpret them.” Lord Esher stated in the case of Willis V Baddeley (1892) 2 QB 324, “There is no such thing as judge-made law, for the judges do not make the law, though they frequently have to apply existing law to circumstances as to which it has not previously been authoritatively laid down that such law is applicable’’ The Judicial process was described as, ‘The determination of the law relative to the case, followed by the retrospective application of the law, and thus, the courts changing the law.’ The United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution, and as such, they have built their ‘constitution’ on mainly Common Law, Acts of Parliament and the European legislation. Common Law approves the argument that courts do in fact have a role in Law making; It is the part of the English law that is consequent from custom and Judicial Precedent rather than statutes. ‘Stare decisis’ is a key feature of the Common Law system; Stare decisis is the practice of following previous decisions of the Court of higher authority. Precedents are dependent on the court hierarchy as superior courts have the power to overrule decisions made by inferior courts. Thus every rule of law is subject to amendment, either by Judges or Parliament because as time progresses, Common Law evolves with it, along with many Legal Principles. Despite the Doctrine of Separation of Powers stating otherwise, Judges do ‘create’ new law. The 1966 Practise Statement 3 All ER 77 made by Lord Gardener, L.C., on behalf of himself and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary permits the House of Lords to depart from their previous decisions (The Doctrine of Precedents/ Stare Decisis). Ronald Dworkin in the ‘Hart-Dowrkin Debate’ stated that judges have no discretion in law making, they are merely implementing it. He also stated that law was a seamless web of principles and judges have to follow these principles. However, since Lord Chancellor issued the practise statement, it helped create flexibility in cases. This gave the House of Lords power to alter the position of the existing law. S2(1) European Community Act 1972, S3 Human Rights Act (1998) Allowed Judges to make law rather than simply interpret as they were seen to be filling the ‘gaps’ of the ambiguous legislation. The Legislation made way for many cases where new law was made; Pepper v Hart (1993) overruled the House of Lords ruling in the Davis v Johnson (1979) that banned the use of Hansard in statutory interpretation, British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) overruling Addie v Dumbreck (1929) on the duty of care owed to a child trespasser, and R v Dica (2004) the Court of Appeal overruled R v Clarence (1888) and held that criminal liability could be imposed on a defendant for infecting another person with HIV. The judiciary has formulated various methods which they use to interpret vague statutory provisions. The Literal rule of interpretation states that the wording of the statute must be followed in a word by word basis; this gives judges no freedom of choice for them to actually change the law but only to enforce it. The statute must be enforced by the judges even though it may lead to an illogical decision. The case of Fisher v Bell is a demonstration of this rule. The strict application of the Literal rule may be altered by use of the Golden rule; judges may depart from the usual meaning of the words, in favour of an interpretation which avoids illogicality. The Mischief rule asks the judge to consider what the legislative purpose of the Act was - what was the ‘mischief’ the Act was trying to deal with. Any question of interpretation should be determined in such a way as not to hinder that purpose. The role of judges in law making is evident, and they do have a major part to play in the evolution and development of out of date law. However, Government should not be based in a single power as it can lead to dictatorship, oligarchy and disorder. Liberty exists not only for individual freedom and rights but also with boundaries in relation to law so that there would not be abuse of powers. The Doctrine of Separation of Powers states that a government should be set up so that man should not be required to do things which the law does not require him, nor should he be obliged to refrain from things allowable. This convention is important for the maintenance of checks and balances. Judges therefore, according to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers should not make law, as their role is to interpret and declare law created by Legislation. The only difference between failure and success is 'consistency'.Consistency, by definition is our regularized behavior; our habits determine whether we will succeed or fail. Too frequently, we prioritize the wrong things; or maybe we prioritize the right things in exiguous amounts.
What you do everyday defines you, it can either build you up or tear you down. Success isn't easy, it requires effort and sacrifice. When most people think of success or failure, the first thing that comes to mind is in your education, occupation, or financially, but that's just one part of it. We can be extremely 'successful' at the things we prioritize as most important yet fail at our relationships, emotionally due to depression, in our character or reputation, even in our health. The question may arise, "How do I balance everything in my life so I can have it all?" Reality dictates that most times you won't, but what's important is that no matter what situation you end up in, you have to make the most out of it, you have to keep trying and never give up. To be successful you need to take your failure and work more efficiently to get what you want. There's a funny thing about consistency, working harder and not changing your old habits isn't going to make you successful. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. To achieve ultimate success requires you giving up your distractions with the hope of accomplishing your goal. When I was in high school, I wasn't the kid to place in the top 5, or even the top 10, because during that part of my adolescence I prioritized social media, watching television all afternoon, playing games, and then maybe studying one hour a day maximum. I was contented achieving mediocrity because I had settled, I began telling myself that even if I tried I could never be an 'A' student. As I grew older I not only matured physically, but I began craving more out for my life intellectually; Slowly I began reading more about History, Politics, Scientific discoveries and theories, reading about world news. I soon realized that as I expanded my knowledge and changed my habits, that success came naturally to me. I never understood the saying that you can look at someone and know if they'll be successful, until I became living proof of it. Your success is all in your head, I understand how that may sound silly at first because you're probably thinking, how is success in my head? If you think negatively, if before you even try, you tell yourself that this is too difficult for you and you're probably going to fail; it's sad for me to say, but the odds are, that you're most likely really going to fail. Your attitude determines your success or failure. Now, let's be real, telling yourself that you're intelligent and believing that you can accomplish anything is just the first step. Belief with no/little effort will never amount to success, you need to know the difference between work done and work required. Whatever you're hoping to be successful at, you need to put in sufficient work, you can't expect to lose 10 pounds in a month by eating the same unhealthy food everyday with maybe a salad during lunch and zero exercise. Anything worth accomplishing requires effort and dedication. Self discipline is the most important rule of success, studying one day for the week isn't going to get you that First Class Honors degree. Success isn't just about knowing enough to 'pass', it's about doing the best you possibly can. Success requires you to prioritize at least 3 hours out of your day, everyday, to study. Last year during Christmas, I had 4 assignments which were due early January, that constituted 40% of my final grade for each module. I live in Trinidad which is generally a very family oriented country and Christmas season is usually a huge celebration with multiple family parties, concerts etc. Self discipline is staying home while your entire family is out socializing, so you can complete your assignments to the best of your ability to achieve the highest possible grade. Self discipline is knowing your priorities and sacrificing pleasures to accomplish what you had set out to do. One of the main things I've learnt is that no matter how much you try, sometimes you may fall short and fail. Defeat is not the worse of your failures, giving up after a defeat is. No matter what life may throw at you, no matter how messy the situation is, even if you feel depressed because you're not moving as fast as everyone else, or your relationship isn't mending as quickly as you'd want it, or you're not getting promoted quickly enough; what matters is that you're still moving forward and you're still trying. I failed a course once and at first it really demotivated me because I had never failed at anything in my life, my father told me something Winston Churchill said, "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts". That statement could not be any further true; I got up the next day, I did everything that is stated above, I resat the exam, and I passed. It cannot be any more emphasized that the courage to continue after failure leads to ultimate success. |
AuthorKarina Samaroo Archives
September 2019
Categories
All
|