If he wants to die, let him die - it will be one less drain on our tax spending when it could go on our health service. Let him die. And all the others that want to leave prison early - we could do with the room.Harry Billingham, England The country decided Brady's fate when he was sentenced to life 30 years ago. What right does he have to cop out of this punishment now?Lesley, UK

No, he should have been hanged long ago
Mary Smith, England

If he wants to starve let him die!!!
Simon Wright, England

Reading between the lines, this has just turned into another pointless debate on the policy of the British Government not to execute it's citizens for the crime of murder. Brady killed children with Hindley, was convicted and sentanced to imprisonment. As such they do have basic human rights, just as Gary Glitter has rights and Fred West had rights and so on, as every prisoner does. The question is, are his basic human rights violated by force-feeding him. I don't know. I wish I did. But the "Hang em and flog em" brigade want to get their pound of flesh. This leads to a conviction, on my part anyway, that people are no longer interested in justice. What we are interested in is blame. We have to take the blame out on someone. Someone earlier mentioned the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 etc etc. All innocent, all convicted, and all released later. If these people had been executed, well that's 10 deaths we could all have had a share in. A final word to the pro-death-penalty lobby. If we get the death penalty back, it's a very small step I believe to public birching and televised executions. Some of the contributors to this debate would probably rather see Brady turned out in Trafalgar Square and kicked to death by an angry mob. Now wouldn't that make for good ratings ?
Steve , England

Much as I resent paying the taxes to fund it, I do believe that he should be force fed. It is against the law to sit back and watch him die, and sets a dangerous precedent. Saying 'Ah, but he's Ian Brady' does not, in my opinion, justify anything. Who are we to decide who has committed a sufficiently heinous crime that they can be allowed to die? I thought we'd abolished the death penalty.
J.Adams, Britain

Brady is a waste of rations. If he chooses to go slowly, so be it.
Chris Klein, England

To repay inhumanity with inhumanity is to destroy civilization. To bay for someone's blood in this animal-like way is to reduce us to the level of Brady's original crimes. It will not bring back the children who died and will do nothing to save this man's soul if there is even an inkling of a chance of sincere remorse. Let God deal with the Moors killers. We have no right to take their lives just as they had no right to take those that they did. Real power is about being in a position to take retribution but showing mercy instead. Stop judging others, there may be a time when we are in a position to ask for mercy. Revenge killing makes me sick.
J, Northern Ireland

How dare Ian Brady complain about ill-treatment! He committed one of the most horrendous crimes this century. I was not even born when the Moor's murders took place, but watched the recent special on channel 5 where they showed the photographs taken by Brady and Hindley of Lesley just before they murdered her. What is happening to him now is nothing compared to what he and Hindley did. I am glad the nurses abuse him. Good! Let him die - nobody will care and it will save the tax- payers money.
Kate, UK

Is there anyone out there who really cares if he dies? And if so, WHY?
CF, Canada

This is one instance when the courts should have shown leniency and given Brady a suspended sentence - suspended from the end of a rope! Why should we taxpayers continue to keep him alive? Lock him in his cell and await his death! No mercy, no drugs, nothing, just painful death! After all, it is what he wants and more than he deserves.
John C, UK

Shame a few more prisoners don't follow his example. I.e. child killers etc. I don't see why my tax money goes to keep them alive.
Lesley M, UK

If there was any justice he should have been starved to death as soon as he was found guilty.
Marshall Clarke, England

If we retained the death penalty this question and so many others, would never have been asked. And this particular issue resolved.
Justin, UK

Forcing someone to live must be the ultimate humiliation upon the human soul. We should refrain from this practice without question, offering only advice and human kindness.
Roy Litchfield, UK

I don't care about his rights! I think it is ridiculous that people try to place this monster in the same category as others, discussing his rights as though he deserves anything! Come on, this type of lack of sound judgement is what's destroying western society. Some people just try to pass themselves off as being kind and compassionate by excusing away the terrible crimes of monsters like this and by making ridiculous statements about their rights. He has NO rights!!! NONE!
Ven, UK

No, he can chose to end his life but it would not be in vain if he donates his organs to suffering people in need of them. For the first time, someone can gain from his crimes.
Rose, Singapore

I've read past comments made by Ian Brady which implied in his mind he died the minute the police arrived in his house. If he means this, which is a big if, it shouldn't matter to him if he is force-fed or not. If he is protesting some sort of mishandling by his warders, that's a political statement which could be valid. Assuming modern prison systems want to be perceived as humane. If his starvation is a suicide attempt and is not thwarted by the same prison system, then Ian Brady's claim is correct, that the system is inhumane, and he becomes a martyr for his cause. Which is in no ones best interest. Except for Ian Brady's.
Frederick W Noble, America

Ian Brady gave up any basic rights of a human being when he stole those from others.
Antony, England

If he wants to die let him. And don't let the media go on "the poor me " syndrome.
P Brooks, USA

We can't give the children back their lives so why should he get out? Let him die and don't false feed him. give him a hand and make it long and painful.
Lyn, Australia

The comments we see here say at least as much about human nature as anything Ian Brady ever did. That anyone can condemn someone for torture and murder and then in the same breath advocate precisely the same thing in retribution would be comical if it wasn't so chilling. In particular, we can only hope that those who have suggested Brady should be kept alive for the sole purpose of suffering are merely thoughtless, because as a dispassionate suggestion this is truly inhuman. Or perhaps this hunger for sadistic revenge merely suggests that our animal origins aren't as remote as we like to pretend.
Mark Hurst, UK

Death by self-imposed starvation should always be an opportunity for criminals to leave prison early. Prison sentences are about rehabilitation, and keeping society safe. Life sentences are specifically about the latter. Prison is not about revenge.
Aerden Entreri, United States

Yes. Why should he be allowed to take the easy way out? Did he show any mercy towards his victims? He should live to be a 100, and suffer every day until then.
Kathy Hart, USA

Ian Brady has no say in whether he lives or dies. He lost that right along time ago. Why should medical staff watch him die and be a party to his death? He's had plenty of time to kill himself and maybe now he has realised that he'll never be paroled and he's had enough. Well it doesn't work that way.
What is really sad is to see so many people in favour of the death penalty. Living here in the US I can tell you that the death penalty is not a deterrent and is a barbaric tool used mainly against the poor who don't have the funds for a high-flying defence team. If the death penalty was still present in the UK then the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 would be dead. People should remember that is was the killing of an innocent that called a halt to the death penalty in the UK.
Roger Jennings, USA

It always amuses me when people say the death penalty is no deterrent. So what? It is a simple fact that if Ian Brady was dead, he couldn't have murdered those children. The fewer evil people in the world the better, and Brady is certainly evil.
Alex Stanway, England

Ian Brady committed horrific crimes and he has served 33 years which I feel is long enough. Now it is time he died. So let him die. Dying of starvation is just about nasty enough I feel. Or why not just let him out and see what happens? My money says he won't see the first week out.
Steve, England

If he wishes to die, he should be able to. What he did was horrible but what is being done to him is worse than the crime he committed. If it is truly his wish to die, then allow him to do so, in a dignified manner. Everyone is deserving of some manner of dignity, even the lowest man on the face of the earth.
Thomas Weinheimer, USA

The only useful purpose in keeping Brady alive against his wishes seems to be to satisfy a blood-thirsty public thwarted in its desire to see him hanged more than thirty years ago. Am I alone in finding this a contradictory and disturbing point of view?
Richard, USA

Britain has an historical blind-spot dealing with hunger-strikers. If this monster wants to off himself, let him. You're only twisting yourself in knots of pointless guilt trying to keep him alive.
T.J. Cassidy, USA

Brady should be force-fed. This monster has no rights or choices and if it is causing him pain to live....GOOD! I hope he suffers till his last breath for what he did to those children and their families. He's getting what he richly deserves. I also hope that Myra Hindley suffers the same fate, despite the 'bleeding hearts' who are trying to get her out. Be vigilant UK, don't allow that to happen.
Mary Auld, Canada

No, Brady should not be force-fed. He's a publicity seeking, manipulative nutter. Leave him alone, no Press attention and see if he really kills himself. My bet is he'd be back on 3 square meals a day long before his life was in danger and if I'm wrong, who cares?
Keith Chamberlain, USA

Ian Brady committed abominable crimes, and he received the sentence of 'life' as punishment. He has spent over 30 years doing this punishment. I do not think people should stoop to his level, by suggesting that we should choose the course of action which would cause him the most pain; instead we should allow him to die. That is not 'choosing his future', that is 'ending his life'.
I do not believe he should ever be released, and by letting him die we can divert resources to more worthy causes, and be 100% certain he will not be freed.
Nick, UK

Yes, force-feed him. It sounds an unpleasant procedure and as the food will be prepared in a State institution it will not even have an aftertaste. As for his wish to avoid punishment, we all have our dreams!
Russell Woods, UK

Ian Brady should serve his sentence, and not be allowed to take the easy way out. He's on hunger strike, but that doesn't really sound like courage to me, he is a foul animal.
Richard McConnell, Ireland

Why are we wasting money on legal niceties of whether an individual should be allowed to commit suicide or not. Let him die if he wants and use the money to save the life of young children who are dying of starvation every few seconds around the world.
N Partington, UK

As far as I'm aware both suicide and euthanasia are still illegal in this country. Therefore the prison authorities are legally obliged to prevent his death. If he was serious about killing himself he wouldn't have chosen such a slow high profile method. It's all about publicity. Where's Max Clifford?
Graeme, England

I grew up in the area where Brady committed his crimes. The shadow of them still hangs over the area to this day. I think every effort should be made to keep him alive for a long as possible so he can reflect on them for as long as possible.
Carolyn Obler, UK

He should be forced fed if it is against his wishes. Just like what he did against those children's wishes. Death is to good for him!
Paul Bennett, England

It is tempting to say let him die, but since Britain doesn't have a death penalty you can't do that and obey the law.
Richard T. Ketchum, USA

Why are we wasting our time talking about the rights of this low life barbarian. Consider the right to live of the poor innocent children taken so brutally some 30 years ago. Brady is a worthless creature and whilst I believe that he should be made to suffer for the rest of his natural life for his part in those sickening and despicable crimes, if he wishes to die, then let him, his suffering and guilt will surely be compounded even more severely in the next world.
Bob George, Egypt

Why is he still alive? Considering the hideous crime he and Hindley performed they both should have been put down like the animals they are. We forget about the victims and those who suffer their loss and worry about the criminal. Brady is never going to be released and has forfeited his right to be part of the human race by his actions against children. Pull the plug!
Ryan Allain, USA

He should have been killed 33 years ago. What kind of society lets a child murder live on for so long. I'm not saying it should be "an eye for an eye" but if you kill people like these then the number of "mentally deranged" and apparently "inhuman" murderers will go down in a big hurry.
Atif Rahman, Pakistan

He should not be allowed to take the easy option, the relatives of those he murdered will not be able to opt out of their suffering so why should he?
Martin, UK

What's the difference? Either way, he's out of harm's way. Surely that's what is important. Beyond that, a person should have the right to choose.
Andrew Milne, Kuwait

When Brady wants to die I should say grant him a quick death. Lifelong imprisonment is impractical and costly unless we are seeking for revenge in the name of justice but that is not doing justice.
Ron Brandenburg, The Netherlands

First, the British government doesn't have the right to kill its citizenry, or watch them die. Second, Brady is not the right subject for a test case. Feed him until the law is changed.
TUK, UK

He should have been hanged many years ago. Perhaps on reflection he should be force-fed just so he has to endure more years in prison; in solitary confinement ideally.
Nick Southwood, UK

If parents can deny medical treatment to their children based on Religion, he should have the right, being of sound mind, to deny treatment to himself. *And maybe for the better*
Peter Pieda, Canada

I believe that if he makes this choice, there is nothing we should do about it. It's not like we don't give him food. If he doesn't appreciate the goodness of the society despite his crime, he should die by his own hand.
Artur Kedziora, USA

He should be force fed and force medicated to keep him alive and suffering for hopefully another 30 years, and then I'd like to think that God will make him suffer for eternity. I can only assume that all the people who believe he has any kind of rights do not have children of their own. The more he suffers, the better. I hope he lives a long time in agony, and maybe that example will prevent at least some other children from going through the same.
Graham Bell, Brazil

Firstly I believe that murderers should be hanged if guilty beyond doubt. From what I read this man murdered children? And now there is concern over him refusing to eat. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for him and his problem of not liking the fact that he will be locked up for the rest of his life.
Leave him to die. Do not feed do not monitor and do not publicise his case. The human will to live is very strong and he is just jerking the establishment's chain.
Willem, South Africa

The bloodlust brigade are loose again. What Brady did was wrong and evil but some of the sadistic responses here are no better. To the 'he should have been hanged' brigade. Look at the US. Does the prospect of the death penalty prevent murder. It doesn't appear to. We shall only be truly civilised when we have the freedom to control our own lives and, more importantly, the freedom to die when and how we wish.
Wayne, UK

Let the scum die! He is no loss to the gene pool! The world has had enough of limp wristed liberalism creating monsters like this!!
Tony Randell, South Africa

I will feel as much remorse for Brady's death as he has shown for the innocents he and Myra ruthlessly tortured and murdered. Let him starve!
K Davis, England

If the man wants to protest, let him protest. After all, it will fall on death ears. In the end it won't make a difference - he'll still be behind bars and will hopefully die there too and if starvation is the cause, let it be. A cruel thing some of you humanitarians may think, but remember this, he and Hindley killed children. What would you say if it was one of yours?
Jason, UK

In a sense, it does not really matter who the man is, if anyone wants to die by taking his or her own life, that is a decision for that individual. He sould be allowed to die.
Peter Fisher, UK

After reading recent articles it was found that Mr Brady is on hunger strike due to the aggressive treatment he received while being moved. What he seems to forget is his treatment towards defenceless children. He and Miss Hindley should of hung for their actions and not be constantly moaning and groaning about their life in prison.
Mr J R Cottrell, England

I don't think the fact that he murdered children, although totally abhorrent, is necessarily a factor in this argument. If someone chooses to stop eating because they want to die, I think they should be allowed to do so. If you have no control over your own death, what control DO you have? Certainly, he should have been given the death penalty 30 years ago but he wasn't. I say let him make his own choices.
Lisa Deakin, UK

How terrible to see all this evil pouring out of people. Do you think others don't understand the enormity of his crimes? Comments like these just breed more evil. It's pathetic.
Chrissy, England

If it is Mr. Brady's will to die, then we should let him. It will free the resources he is currently using which may help some other poor soul. As for him "escaping his punishment". We have taken away his liberty, all that is let is revenge and the infliction of suffering - do we want to stoop to his level?
Jason, Scotland

If he wants to die then make him live, if he wants to live then let him die.
Vincent Gallagher, England

No-one denies the appalling nature of his crimes, but he's still a human being who has spent all of my lifetime in prison. Surely a human being should be able to determine the manner of their passing. Is it just the good guys in torment who are allowed to practice voluntary euthanasia? I think the right to choose the manner of your death should be one of mankind's greatest overriding rights. Death is the final ride, let us allow him to make the journey.
Scott Ogier, Guernsey

I think that if Ian Brady wants to starve himself, then let him. He complains that in being force-fed his human rights are being violated. What about the rights of those poor children he murdered? As far as I am concerned he shouldn't have any rights. That aside, if he wants to die, then let him.
Pam Mouton, USA - Ex UK

Did he, Ian Brady, stop to ask any of his victims how they would like to live out their future no he decided what their future should be. He should be force-fed. After all none of his victims were allowed to pick and choose.
Jo, England

I remember the horror of the moors murder trial, from when I was a child. If Brady is suffering, then in the name of the children who suffered, he should be forced to live and given the best medical treatment possible.
Whilst, whatever he may be feeling now, is nothing in comparison to the suffering that the victims endured; the very fact that he wishes to 'end it all', should be encouragement for the authorities to prolong his god forsaken life.
Gareth, Malaysia

I am in two minds, on one hand I think that Ian Brady should be allowed to die, but I also am a firm believer that he should serve his full sentence as he was duly punished for his crimes, but he should identify where the last victims lay before any action is taken.
Karen Stammers, England

Aw, poor little Ian doesn't want to spend the next thirty years 'rotting slowly' in prison. My heart bleeds for him. Feed him, keep him alive and make him live through every single day of his sentence. Yes he has rights, but they do not extend to putting him out of his misery. He (and Hindley) could spend a thousand lifetimes behind bars and it still wouldn't be a fitting punishment for the crimes they committed.
Phil H, UK

He should be allowed to decide for himself if he wants to die.
Sylvia, England

My concern goes beyond Brady. If he is released from his prison term (i.e. allowed to die) will this set a precedent for Myra Hindley? Both went beyond the bounds of normal human behaviour - both were isolated from society for their crimes & both should remain so.
K Taylor, UK

He should be left to starve if that is his decision. I would volunteer to hold the keys to his cell door.
Andrew Torrance, Wales, UK

The question is not about Ian Brady but surely about anyone who wishes to make a decision about their own life and when it should end. To put the question solely in relation to Ian Brady will not invite rational responses because of the emotion surrounding the crimes of which he was committed. Complying with his request might amount to assisted suicide in some people's eyes which is illegal, I believe. He and other people should be permitted to make their own decisions.
Karen Hardy, England

He'll serve his time.
Paul Jardine, GB

His sentence was 'Life', so one would assume that that would mean 'natural life' rather than for how ever long we want him to live buy force feeding him.
Alistair McNally, Japan

Let him die a helpless creature.....it's a better deal than those he gave to his victims.
Jeremy, USA

This discussion deserves better than shallow ranting. Put differently the question is, of course, whether a state should acquiesce in its prisoners' committing suicide. To which the answer is, in my opinion, no.
Peter, Netherlands

Brick up the cell door and leave him to rot like they should have done years ago.
Will, UK

Whether he lives or dies there is no way for him to 'get away'!
Nelson Blackbird, France

I can't ever remember Ian Brady ever feeling remorse for his evil crimes. Why should we succumb to his wishes when he doesn't even recognise his own guilt?
Ian Garrison, England

Of course he should be force fed. By letting him take his own life through starvation or otherwise, is letting him off the hook. He should be kept alive for the duration of his sentence, and made to suffer for what he did...
Simon, England

I am sick to death hearing how hard done to these people are, and how their rights are being abused. What about the rights of these children they abused and murdered and their families.
I bet he'd prefer to die than stay in prison for another 30 odd years, but he should have thought of that before doing the crime, what is the saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime". I say he should be made to live, why should he get the easy way out.
Catriona Thomson, Scotland

In the time it has taken you to read this, hundreds of unfortunate people around the world have starved to death through plight and poverty. Is it not then a little bazaar that we should even consider force feeding this monster, when if justice had been served he should have been executed 33 years ago. Give his three meals a day to someone who needs it.
Nick Stacy, Singapore

I think that he should be force -fed, I do not see why others should be implicated, at some moral level, in his death. If he really feels that he wants to die, then he should take full responsibility and bash his head against his prison cell wall. I am not saying he should do so, only that he could do so.
Tom, Australia

Ian Brady has no rights period! If he does not want to spend the rest of his life in prison then he should have thought about that before he committed those horrible crimes! Those poor children he murdered will have never experienced growing up, adulthood, and the gift of life. Why are we even considering that this man has some rights? If you think that this would be a waste of taxpayer's money, well I agree. The answer to that would be to bring back capital punishment!
Richard, Wales

Ian Brady should NOT be force-fed. Force-feeding is dehumanising and dangerous and it will create more medical problems than it will solve. If Ian Brady wants to die, let him die. For his crime of murder, he should have been executed.
Jeff, USA

Let him starve. That would save England that much money on the low life.
Joe, USA

If Brady wants to die then fine. The UK taxpayer has kept him in jail for 33 years. I would prefer that my taxes are used for something positive, something that will benefit the disadvantaged, rather than keeping Brady in jail for another 30 years.
David Mumford, England

People here who hate Brady say he should be force fed, simply because it is contrary to what he wants. Others decide on the merits of human rights. I'm glad I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I can think rationally. If I were Brady, I would want my wishes to be obeyed. We should therefore respect those wishes.
Steve N, UK

Many say Brady should be force-fed because he didn't let his victims choose their own future. Another argument is that Brady should be force-fed because otherwise he's cheating his punishment, i.e., he will not be punished enough. Starting with the latter: if Brady is mentally sound, one would say that he's suffered profoundly, or that he's been punished profoundly and to such a degree that he wishes to end his life in a slow, methodical and mostly unpleasant manner.
Returning to the argument that Brady shouldn't be allowed to chose his future: he's not, he's choosing death. I'm sure if he could really choose his future he'd be off in some garden somewhere with the grass playing between his toes.
Bungle Munch, USA

No one should force-feed this man. It is his will, and he has the right to exercise it. No one is innocent in this world.
Kyla Stanford, England

Yes he should be force-fed - he is obviously suffering being in captivity and he needs to suffer as long as possible. I say keep him alive for a long time and let him suffer for years to come.
Beck Holt, England

No one should be forced to live. It is his choice. If he wishes to end his life, so be it. Some have said he should not be allowed to make this decision until he has undergone a full psychiatric examination; who cares if he is mentally competent or not - it is his own life we are talking about. Even if his mind has been degraded, why should others be given the right to decide his future.
Greg Henson, England

You never should have bled your citizenry to pay for his sustenance in the first place - monsters like Brady & Hindley should never be allowed to live. We destroy dangerous animals to treat them HUMANELY, as well as to protect human life and health - is Brady's type of inhuman monster LESS deserving?
Nikolai Blerg, USA

I think Ian Brady should have been hanged to begin with. I do not believe he should be force fed, I believe those that are beyond doubt proven to have committed murder should hang and their organs be used to save lives. That way their lives may at least served some useful purpose. My opinion only, and one I am entitled to.
Briory, Ireland

Brady is a cold-blooded killer. The courts have sentenced him to a term of imprisonment which they have deemed appropriate. It is unfortunate that the United Kingdom rescinded the death penalty, the only fitting sentence for such heinous crimes. Brady should be force fed, and left in his cell to complete his sentence
James Estrin, Canada

Brady should be treated as any other person should be treated. No better no worse. If that means force feeding, so be it. The fact that he did not grant his unfortunate victims such treatment should not, unfortunately, influence his treatment now.
Mark Parish, US

Every person has a fundamental right to decide when to eat and when not to. One can not and should not interfere with that fundamental right.
Ali Ash, USA

The mere circumstance that this guy was incarcerated for murder negates any hold on his life he might have had.
Peter Crawford-Bolton, UK in US

I do not think the hospital should force-fed Mr. Brandy. He is 61 years old, and it would be a waste of time due to his old age.
Amy Lufkin, USA

Ian Brady should have been strapped into a chair and force fed 40,000 volts 30 years ago. If ever there was a good example of the need for the death penalty, then this was it.
Alex Stanway, England

It depends on what he wants. If he wants to die then make sure he lives as long and miserable a life as possible. Calmly dying at the moment of his choosing is a far nicer demise than any of victims received.
Neil Halliday, England

One of the few decisions we generally don't get to make is about our death. I consider it to be a luxury to do so. He's made a choice to do wrong and is living with the consequences. Perhaps he doesn't have the right to chose now. I would want to have the choice, so maybe he should too.
Michael Williams, UK

Let him die. If he wants to die from starvation who the heck are you, me or anyone to tell someone let alone Brady that he must eat? I say let him starve to death more so set up tables around his cell with piles upon piles of food. Although it still won't equal the lives he took.
Andy, United States of America & proud

He should not have the easy way out. The children didn't!
R Watchus, England

What's he doing still alive wasting tax payer money anyway?
C Aylward, USA

The longer he is alive, the longer we will be able to see what evil exists in our world. Let's keep him alive and remind ourselves of what should never be allowed to happen again!
Alex Williams, England

One has to ask why it is that people are put in jail for "life." Is it really as punishment? It shouldn't be. Punishment should be reserved as something done to change behaviour. But if the person is to spend the rest of their life there, what is the point in changing the behaviour? If he wants to end his life, then let him. It is a service to the taxpayers, who won't have to pay the cost to jail him anymore.
Brian LaMere, USA

If he wants out, let him. He's not worth a second thought.
R N Twemlow, England

No. If a person who tortures children to death (and I don't care how long ago it was) wants to starve to death, then let him. He'll still probably have a more dignified end than his victims.
Pat, UK

Let Ian Brady die - why should we (the public) have to keep him alive with our hard earned money!!!!
Jackie Gilchrist, UK

No, Brady should not be force-fed. I think that the one remaining right that we should allow people such as him to have is the ability to choose whether to live or die.
Robin Hooper, England

Most British citizens are familiar with this case ie how Ian Brady and Myra Hindley kidnapped and tortured a series of children over 33 years ago. These crimes still evoke strong emotions - particularly since the murderers took pornographic photos of the children during torture, and even tape-recorded them begging for their lives. Make no mistake, what Brady & Hindley did cannot be forgiven. However, the fact remains that Brady and Hindley have spent the last 33 years in prison.
Everyone (Brady included) knew that he would never be released. Keeping him alive in prison against his will is a waste of resources because, regardless of what happens in future, the point has been made i.e. the will of the British people that the only way Brady would ever leave prison would be inside a coffin. Let Brady kill himself if he wants to. His death (and that of his accomplice Hindley) will be the final chapters in this sorry affair, though I doubt if anyone will mourn their passing.
Michael Franks , Kuwait (UK)

Let him rot if he wants to. What goes around comes around.
Stuart Ford, UK

Ian Brady should be allowed to die. His death should be as painful as possible. No drugs to alleviate any symptoms related to his hunger strike should be administered. No concessions should be made for him he made no concessions for his victims.
Yvonne Gregory, England

Starving to death is a horrible and painful way to die. Now what does that remind me of...?
Alex Parker, UK

He should be force fed to keep him alive to serve out his sentence. Letting him die would allow him to cheat justice. He says that he does not want to spend years "rotting slowly" in prison, but that is to whole point of a life sentence.
Peter, UK

Why should Ian Brady decide his future, he didn't allow his victims to.?
Carole Parsons, USA

No, he shouldn't be force fed, if he doesn't want to spend anymore time in jail, then who should we be to stop him. We would be better off without that sort of person, why waste tax payers money!!
Miss Smith, England

If the man wishes to stop eating then by free will he should be allowed to.
Duncan Wallace, Scotland

Brady is being provided with the necessities of life. He is also aware of the implications of his decision. If he chooses not to avail himself of what is supplied to him then he is responsible. He should not be force fed.
Marie Taylor, Canada

Mr Brady should not be force fed. It is his decision not to eat, which is a right we give to everyone else. In spite of the horrible crimes he has been party to it serves no useful purpose to force him to continue to live when clearly it is his choice to die. The tragedy of the past cannot be healed by the barbaric act of force feeding. Perhaps he is right. Why should we prolong the life and the agony of one such as he.?
Phil Hall, UK

Allowing Brady not to be force-fed, in other words allowing him to starve to death would be allowing him to cheat the sentence he received for his crimes. His punishment should be enforced and if that means keeping him alive by force-feeding then so be it. He did not give his victims a second chance and neither should he, let him rot with his thoughts and guilt.
Alan Edwards, USA

If he chooses to not eat, let him choose. He choose to end lives, so let him end his own now. The world is overburdened with too many individuals like Ian Brady.
Dawn Gray, USA

The first question that comes to my mind is whether he is mentally incapacitated or not. If he is, then he is in no position to choose his fate, because of diminished mental capacity and should be force fed. If he is not, he still should be force fed because he needs to face up to his punishment. He was put in prison for a reason. Why should he be allowed to choose his fate when so many of his victims were not?
K Gutteea, USA

This topic depends on England's 'right-to-die'/suicide statutes; if suicide, or 'assisted-suicide' is not a crime - then, this man should be allowed to take whatever road he wishes; BUT, he should be given a full, psychiatric exam before - to see if he is competent to make such a decision. I believe that it is an individual's right to determine when it is time to end life - IF there are existing circum- stances to warrant such a decision; and the individual is competent to make such a decision.
Frank E. Martin, USA

What Rights? Put him back in his cell and lock the door, preferably forever!
Keith Falconer, Canada

What is he trying to prove? That he is a great humanitarian who is being unjustly treated? He should be forced fed and made sure that he lives long enough to complete his prison sentence. If he dosen't wants to rot in prison then he should have not done what he did. Tough luck pal you get what you deserve.
Rav Mago, U.S.A