Whoever was responsible for the Lockerbie air atrocity showed no compassion for the 270 people who died as a result of the action. The bombers didn't give a dam about the family circumstances, the children, the parents or friends of those who perished as a result of their actions.
If Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was one of those responsible then I don't see why he should be shown any more compassion, because of the fact that he is dying, than the compassion that he showed to those who he was responsible for killing. He wants to be with his family and loved ones when he dies, his family and loved ones want the comfort of being with him too – a comfort which was viciously denied to the victims of Lockerbie.
However there seemed to be a possibility that he was not guilty, that he was a scapegoat and that he had a chance of a reprieve based on the strength of his case for appeal. But it appears that he will not live long enough to see the outcome of that appeal, so the appeal has been dropped in order to enable the Scottish Justice authorities to expedite either his release on compassionate ground or his return to his homeland to serve his sentence there on compassionate grounds.
This totally confuses me and confirms the law is an ass theory.
By dropping his appeal he accepts his guilt. If he is guilty he deserves no compassion.
By continuing with his appeal he maintains his innocence and leaves open the possibility of doubt about his guilt. I can accept, given his poor health, that where doubt remains he might be given the benefit of that doubt and be shown compassion. I could understand if he was released on bail or sent to serve his sentence in Libya, prior to returning to Scotland (should he live) for the appeal.
The fact that he can only be shown compassion by admitting his guilt (even if he is really innocent) makes an ass of the law and a complete bollocks of the concept of true compassion!