The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Euthanasia is a rational and humane cause > Comments

Euthanasia is a rational and humane cause : Comments

By David Swanton, published 11/5/2010

Euthanasia is an issue that divides societies, although it enjoys 80 per cent popular support in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
There are two types of Euthanasia, active and passive.

Passive euthanansia occurs where people die whilst on waiting lists, failure to rescue and by making medical care difficult to get.

Over the last two decades federal and state governments in the cost cutting to the public health sector and the reduction in available public hospital beds, have engaged in passive euthanasia.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:00:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It goes without saying that you are absolutely right. How dare anyone tell me what I can do with my life based on their own distorted religious views that I do not accept. It is a tenet of an individual's right to end his/her life whenever he/she chooses as long as he/she is of sound mind and is certain that their life is no longer acceptable due to pain and suffering that cannot be alleviated. These qualifications are already accepted by Exit International.

It has been suggested that euthanasia will develop into something more than an individual right to die. This is just a smoke screen to frighten people into believing the safeguards are not adequate just to see their own beliefs are adopted. I wonder how many people have cursed the ones trying to keep them alive against their wills.
Posted by snake, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:05:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The terminally ill should have at their disposal - either self administered or by assistance, enough powerful pain killers - generally narcotic, as required to adequately control their suffering. If this means 'overdosing' resulting in coma and respiratory failure then so be it.

I agree that the so-called management of the dying here in Australia leaves much to be desired. It is not only the suffering of the patient but that of family and other loved ones who are forced to either watch and share the pain or flee the scene. The latter choice depriving the dying of the comfort of their nearest and dearest in their last days.

Indeed animal owners ARE prosecuted if found to have animals in agonised dying condition and fail to put them out of their misery.
How much more pressing the case for allowing similar assistance to individuals who make an informed choice to be assisted from this life when suffering becomes unbearable?

RIP Angelique Flowers. Your story was heartbreaking. I hope you have made it to a better place.
Posted by divine_msn, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:28:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A law purporting to criminalize a particular behaviour is null and void if juries are not willing to convict people for that behaviour. Whatever the law says, whatever the judge says, whatever the facts are, if the jury returns to the courtroom and says "Not guilty," that is the end of the matter, and no further action can be taken against the defendant or the jurors. If a minority of jurors cannot persuade the others to acquit, they can still force a mistrial, and the expectation of repeated mistrials will force the prosecution to give up. (It is precisely in order to facilitate such action that the law gives us the right to be judged by our peers. Why else would the law entrust the task to a bunch of ordinary citizens untrained in making findings of fact?)

Therefore, if the legalization of a particular behaviour has wide public support but insufficient support from politicians, those who support the legalization of that behaviour would be well advised to educate prospective jurors -- i.e. the people at large -- on their power to nullify laws.

N.B.: I make the above remarks, not as a supporter of legalizing anything in particular, but as a supporter of jury nullification in principle (see http://archive.grputland.com/2009/05/jury-defence-against-bad-laws.html). But, as a matter of interest, I am on record as supporting jury nullification for the purposes of protecting whistleblowers (http://tribune.grputland.com/2010/03/juries-can-already-protect.html) and upholding the presumption of innocence against legislation purporting to reverse the onus of proof (http://tribune.grputland.com/2010/04/unprintable-remarks-on-presumption-of.html and http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-worst-drug-criminals-a-by-Gavin-R-Putland-100326-623.html).
Posted by grputland, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:57:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While ever we have Prime Ministers who go to Church each Sunday Morning and politicians who grovel to religious institutions in order to attract the Christian or Muslim vote, etc., we will never have euthanasia.

That some doctors assist euthanasia (although it involves a risk of prosecution) is commendable. But it shouldn't be necessary.

If the world could rid itself of all religions, then commonsense would prevail and the world wouldn't be so divided!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:02:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I agree with all you have said.
Had a lengthy response to this post but went out of the site to check some detail and of course it was gone when I returned. A very poor website and risky to move in and out of. These kind of things were corrected years ago but not here, so it seems. This matter has been raised many times.
But well said. You can't criticise poor old Abbott for his stance. As a practising Catholic he knows no better that to do what he is told by Rome. People mindlessly subservient to religion should not be allowed to serve as politicians. You cannot serve two masters.
As for Rudd, he is weak and feeble-minded over a subject that has 80% of support in this country and it is his disregard and rudeness in not bothering to respond to Angelique's video that will be his undoing. Too arrogant by far.
Keep the letters coming. Perhaps one day someone will stand up to the self-serving churches in the country. They are an anachronism in 2010.
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:04:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David you say that: “Euthanasia is about individual choice and dignity”.

On that basis I take it that you support anyone being given access to euthanasia for any reason. After all, if it is only a matter of it being an individual’s choice, on what basis could you or anyone else say that a person should be refused euthanasia, whatever their state of health may be?

Presumably you would fully support Philip Nitschke’s famous , or perhaps infamous, claim that euthanasia should be available “to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, the troubled teen . . . This would mean that the so-called ‘peaceful pill’ [euthanasia pill] should be available in the supermarket so that those old enough to understand death could obtain death peacefully at the time of their choosing.”
Posted by JP, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a program titled "Respecting Patient choices" basically it is about putting in place an advanced care plan and mapping out what medical treatment is acceptable by the patient.

At some point in time in the future, society will have to come to terms with the limitations of the human body and accept there are points where to continue to treat is futile.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:53:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Euthanasia, a humane and rational cause.
Indeed, and, poll after poll, a majority of Australians agree.
I am shocked that Mr Rudd/his office, made no reply to what must have been a heart-rending plea from Angelique. A further point to be noted regarding our Prime Minister and his ethical values.

I made a submission to Senator Brown's inquiry into the subject of assisted death. The fact that no time has been made available for its debate is deplorable. Why, in this matter, do we have fewer rights than our pets?

Such a discussion must include all Australians, including the 3% who suffer from severe and incurable mental illnesses ( schizophrenia, bipolar 1 and severe clinical depression). The general stigma which attaches to this group from the Prime Minister down to some ordinary citizens must not be shown in this debate.

A person dying from a malignancy whose pain is uncontrolled has no greate right to euthanasia
Posted by Caroline93, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 12:38:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The same people who swallowed the lie that Mr Rudd believed gw to be the biggest moral dilemma of the century would now have us believe that Nitshcke’s actions are all about compassion and dignity. What a load of garbage. No doubt many would be thrilled to collect their inheritances earlier than they once thought possible. The lying academics who claimed that abortion was about the poor girl who is raped are still not satisfied with babies at 7 and 8 months being murdered. And of course this also is about compassion in their own eyes. Euthanaaia is plainly about men and woman who want to play god. By all means let them take their own lives but to fail to protect the most vulnerable will be another crime worst than the holocaust as shown by the way we slaughter our babies for convenience sake. Our society is becoming sicker as we embrace the priesthood of men like Nitshcke.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 1:50:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Our society is becoming sicker as we embrace the priesthood of men like Nitshcke."

Better than being "embraced" by runners men of the priesthood.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 2:02:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, you categorise people with a view about one thing (eg gw) as having the same view about another (eg. euthanasia). You confuse abortion with euthanasia. You seem to confuse abortion with late-gestational killing.

Different issues have different aspects to them.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 2:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, I assume you are religious and I would just like to point out that religious people have no monopoly on compassion. The stolen generation and sick cultural genocide imposed on the Aboriginal people was motivated by church "compassion". And what of the "compassionate" priests who time and time again rape societies most innocent members? And what of "The Army of God" with their campaign of murder and bombings against innocent people in America? Please take you delusional moral superiority elsewhere.

Now to your points:

"No doubt many would be thrilled to collect their inheritances earlier than they once thought possible"

Do you have a mother? A father? Do you actually believe this would be a common problem? What sort of sick view of humanity do you possess? In any case, well designed laws would greatly reduce this risk.

"Euthanasia is plainly about men and woman who want to play god"

News flash runner, we live in a secular society. Not everyone believes in your god nor should they have to believe in your fundamentalist craziness. And on playing god, what are priests anyway, who is the pope? Does he not play god by dictating gods word? Give me a break.

Keep your religion to yourselves. I don't tell you what to believe so don't try and impose your beliefs on me. If you don't want abortions, don't have them. If you want to suffer in old age, suffer. Just don't impose Christianity's fetish for suffering on others.
Posted by Fragmachine, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 2:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When will "Right to Lifers" actually embrace "Right to a dignified end"?

If "God Giveth" and "God Taketh Away" then some people sure suffer during the process, and GOD sure takes people in the most undignified ways.

But didn't Jesus "Allow himself to be crucified"...OMG Do Christians have it wrong again? Is this "Euthanasia for a purpose?"

Euthanasia is a simple system to implement.

Once a patient has given approval (and they were capable of giving such approval)

1. The patient must be seen by TWO seperate Doctors privately who are NOT known to the family or patient and have NEVER treated the patient. A social worker or nurse could be provided for support.

2. The seperate medical information is then collated and assessed by a THIRD Doctor. If any one of the 3 descents (on medical grounds ONLY)then the patient should not be euthanised.

3. These Doctors have the obligation to set a re-assessment date if the patient deteriorates further.

4. If all 3 Doctors agree then a sensible concoction of drugs (NOT just Morphine) is given to the patient enabling a peacefully dignified passing.

This would ensure that ONLY people who wished this choice could be assured that the decision was being taken on medical grounds and people like Runner wouldn't have to worry about the money.
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 2:47:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The Pope’s arrogant statement that the ill should pray to find “the grace to accept, without fear or bitterness, to leave this world at the hour chosen by God” '

Yes, the doctrine of suffering - that somehow enduring suffering will prepare for the alleged afterlife.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 2:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We cannot, as a civilised society, continue to let people suffer when they are in the most desperate of situations."
Indeed we cannot, and a majority of Australians agree with this.
It was a shock to read that Mr Rudd ignored what must have been a heart-rending plea from Angeline Flowers. This, and his refusal to allow time to debate the inquiry of Senator Brown into assisted death diminishes the prime minister.
My submission to the Senator's review emphasized that any debate must be inclusive of all severely ill Australians. Some who have suffered the cruelties of a severe mental illness for years, or even decades, are as much in need of help to end their lives peacefully as are those who are dying painfully from a severe physical illness.
After my daughter's second suicide attempt (the first from cuts to her wrist, necessitating microsurgery, the second from a drug overdose) she said to me "I couldn't ask you for help, they'd get you for murder." Three years later, her suffering overcoming her ability to cope with so diminished a life any longer, she placed her head on a railway track and finally, the hard way, found peace.
No person should either have to die violently,alone, or live until their incurable disease kills them, enduring agony in the process.
We, with our leaders acting as such, must become the humane and rational society we like to think we are.
Posted by Caroline93, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 3:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article.
The real issue I believe is: Why is such a popular issue "controversial" if 80% of Australians want it? What is so powerful about the other 20% that they can derail the wishes of the vast majority?
If the issue was one of shared outcomes (ie. A new public building) then I could understand and allow a minority view of "no" to prevail. However when the minority view dictates to a majority without a shared outcome then it is simply inappropriate. "Get out of my lounge room" is not an inappropriate reaction to such an invasion of rights. ("Get the f%$# out of my house or I'll...!!" is also appropriate in my view.)
We have many cases where a small group feels it is OK to dictate to the masses: We already have prohibition of anything but the "approved" substances of alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine...which causes a massive $Billion dollar black economy and a permanent bent police force. We will soon be having secret internet censorship, approved by the religious minority on both "sides" of politics.
The religious mindset seems hell-bent on creating fear and reducing the freedoms of anyone not scared. I find the arrogance of the approach (Hi runner!) quite disturbing, as is the ignorance and intelligence of the practitioners. Being ignorant of the lifestyles of others is no sin, but the *arrogance* of their "one size fits all" world-view is getting a bit scary!
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 3:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the past, most people were born and died
at home. Births and deaths happened when they
happened, often without medical intervention.
If a baby was too premature or defective, or if
a seriously ill person was dying, there was little
the family doctor could do about it other than to
offer comfort.

Today, most people are born and die in hospitals
under the supervision of medical personnel who
sometimes decide to keep them alive long beyond
the point at which they would normally have died.
Patients can be hooked up for days, months, or
years to machines that sustain their lives, and
this step may be taken even if they are in constant
pain or even if they are permanently comatose.
Therefore, technologies that were intended to save
people from unnecessary death may actually have the
effect of depriving them of a dignified death.

We have to put pressure on our State and Federal
MPs - for the changes that we want to see made,
otherwise nothing will change.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 3:36:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fragmachine

After a couple of pages of writing secular dogma you have the audacity to9 write 'Keep your religion to yourselves'. You sound very much like those involved with the gw religion who want to silence any other view than their pathetic dogma dressed in pseudo science.

btw are you one of the many scientist who believed the aboriginals are the missing link. This actually led to much hardship for them rather the many missionaries who sacrificed in to give them a better life. Get your facts right before spewing your hatred.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 3:39:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, I don't know what you mean by "secular dogma". If bringing to your attention that religious people do not have a monopoly on compassion equals, "secular dogma" so be it.

"You sound very much like those involved with the gw religion who want to silence any other view"

Ok, I'm not sure how this is related, but I will point out that according to popular opinion 80% of Australians consistently show support for euthanasia. The question then becomes, who exactly, is attempting to silence whom?

"btw are you one of the many scientist who believed the aboriginals are the missing link."

Errr, what missing link? I have no idea what your talking about. I would add however, that any talk of evolution involving "missing links" is probably not exactly your forte; considering your religious beliefs lead you to the conclusion that god just "created" man and then popped out woman from adams rib. Whatever you want to believe sunshine.

"This actually led to much hardship for them rather the many missionaries who sacrificed in to give them a better life"

The missionaries sacrificed what? Their culture? Their Religion? It seems to me the sacrifice was with the Aboriginal people, who sacrificed Aboriginal culture, and Aboriginal religion, for YOUR understanding of a better life. But who are you to judge what constitutes a good life?

Now, It's incorrect to lay the blame for this state of affairs squarely on religion. True the politics and science of the day had an impact, but religion was a prime motivator.

Now I believe this thread was about euthanasia. So, if you have any arguments against euthanasia that you would like to put forward, go ahead, but please don't reference a 2000 year old book. Reason please.
Posted by Fragmachine, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 4:09:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fragmachine

' if you have any arguments against euthanasia that you would like to put forward, go ahead, but please don't reference a 2000 year old book. Reason please.'

Actually these books describe your spiritual condition very accurately. If you want to deny the obvious and bury your head in the sand you can do so.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 5:18:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll take that to mean you have no response to my arguments. You have been reduced to making ad hominem attacks against my perceived "spiritual condition", and in doing so have conceded defeat. Have a nice day.
Posted by Fragmachine, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 5:45:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Short answer David as to why the 20% have greater sway over the remaining 80%- swinging voters- its THEIR vote Labor (or Liberal) need most, as they may just tip the balance in their opponent's favor- and to do this they pander to highly irrational people because they know simple things will keep them under their wing (rational people won't keep supporting them if they do something else wrong).

Anyway, Euthanasia SHOULD be a right of everyone- for everyone that can't process this fact- get over it.
There is no logical argument against it at all, it is so easy to regulate and prevent from abuse, and the biggest part is other counties ARE ALREADY DOING IT in such a manner- with no such cases forcing it to be withdrawn.

But guys- don't bother arguing with the religious loonies here- they don't understand personal will because they don't actually HAVE any as they live their lives based closely upon the instructions of others alone (just like they're basing their arguments) and can't imagine anything than a higher authority granting its will- think about it.

Anyway, I would not support any party that does not see it as a right- it comes to show their attitudes in governance (or lack of wisdom on an issue) in great volumes.

If we were a more democratic country it would have been ancient history- as it isn't, if you feel strongly about making it a reality VOTE for someone who actually supports it.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 5:50:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe in everyone's right to top themselves.
In fact, the more the merrier.
However, once you legalise euthanasia for those who choose death you inevitably introduce euthanasia for those who are unable to make the choice for themselves.
It's the old slippery slope.
If all the euthanasia advocates put their money where their mouth was, we wouldn't have to bother with this debate.
Just shut up and top yourselves, if that's what you want to do.
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 6:15:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said proxy for it is am individual choice, Please have the intestinal fortitude not to involve others in your preference for politicians are not responsible for your personal choice's, you are.
Posted by Richie 10, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 7:35:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
snake,

You claim: <<It has been suggested that euthanasia will develop into something more than an individual right to die. This is just a smoke screen to frighten people into believing the safeguards are not adequate just to see their own beliefs are adopted.>>

You don’t seem to know euthanasia history very well. Holland is one example of euthanasia “rights” being violated.

The official Dutch Government report (The Remmelink Report, 1991) gives conclusive evidence of abuse. The Dutch report shows clearly that doctors are killing without the explicit request of the patient. Doctors have violated the "strict medical guidelines" provided by the Dutch courts.

The Dutch report in the British medical journal, The Lancet, states that "in cases of euthanasia the physician often declares that the patient died a natural death" (p. 669). This report indicates that 0.8% of the 38.0% of all deaths involving euthanasia were “life-terminating acts without explicit and persistent request" (p. 670) (Paul J. van der Maas, Johannes J.M. Delden, Loes Pijnenborg, and Caspar W.N. Looman, "Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life", The Lancet, 338:8768, September 14, 1991, 669).

Dr. John Keown, Director of the Centre for Health Care Law, in the Faculty of Law, University of Leicester, U.K., has completed a research project on euthanasia in Holland. He concludes: “It appears that the overwhelming majority of cases are falsely certified as death by natural causes and are never reported or investigated... It is clear from the evidence set out in Keown's research that all that is known with certainty in the Netherlands is that euthanasia is being practised on a scale vastly exceeding the 'known' (truthfully reported and recorded) cases. There is little sense in which it can be said, in any of its forms, to be under control" (I.J. Keown, "The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands", in The Law Quarterly Review, 108, January 1992, 67, 78).

Before making your kind of claim, I suggest that you acknowledge the historical research regarding voluntary, active euthanasia’s slippery slope.
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 8:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I believe in everyone's right to top themselves. In fact, the more the merrier.

"If all the euthanasia advocates put their money where their mouth was, we wouldn't have to bother with this debate. Just shut up and top yourselves, if that's what you want to do."
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 6:15:14 PM

"... it is am individual choice, Please have the intestinal fortitude not to involve others in your preference, for politicians are not responsible for your personal choice's, you are."
Posted by Richie 10, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 7:35:52 PM

These comments are glib, and bordering on nonsensical and inhumane.

Most people do not have the means to suicide, especially those infirmed by disease. Most do not want to do so - they want to go in a peaceful, non-anxious way, and probably with loved ones at their side, not complicit in the drama that surrounds suicide.

............

""once you legalise euthanasia for those who choose death, you inevitably introduce euthanasia for those who are unable to make the choice for themselves. It's the old slippery slope."
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 6:15:14 PM

Rubbish. Advocacy and power of attorney cover these situations.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 8:54:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OzSpen,
Well done for digging up the slippery slope evidence.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to sway those who have found a new "human right" to champion.
Anyone who questions the new "right" they've discovered is of course immediately branded as a reactionary.
More to the point, I don't think they give a damn about the collateral damage that would accompany the legalisation of euthanasia.
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 9:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
proxy,

Here are some specific details of the slippery slope in the Netherlands. Another assessment is that the real number of physician assisted deaths, estimated by the Remmelink Committee Report is, in reality 25,306 which is made up of (they're on the overhead projector for you to see):

2,300 euthanasia on request (Remmelink Report, 13),

400 assisted suicide (ibid.15),

1,000 life-ending treatments without explicit request (ibid.),

4,756 died after request for non-treatment or the cessation of treatment with the intention to accelerate the end of life. cf, ibid, 15; there were 5,800 such cases but only 82% (i.e. 4,756) of these patients actually died. cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 63ff

8,750 life prolonging treatment was withdrawn or withheld without the request of the patient either with the implicit intention (4,750) or with the explicit intention (4,000) to terminate life. [ibid., 69]; There were 25,000 such cases but only 35% (i.e. 8,750) were done with the intention to terminate life.
Cf ibid., 72; cf also Remmelink Report, 16),]

8,100 morphine overdose with the implicit intention (6,750) or explicit intention (1,350) to terminate life. Of these, 61% were carried out without consultation with the patient, i.e. non-voluntary euthanasia.

There were 22,500 patients who received overdoses of morphine, cf Remmelink Report, 16. 36% were done with the intention to terminate life, cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 58. See ibid., 61, Tabel 7.7 ("Besluit niet besproken")].

THIS TOTAL OF 25,306 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATHS AMOUNTED TO 19.61% OF TOTAL DEATHS [129,000] IN THE NETHERLANDS IN 1990.["To this should be added the unspecified numbers of handicapped newborns, sick children, psychiatric patients, and patients with AIDS whose lives were terminated by doctors according to the Remmelink Report" (pp. 17-19). Source: Dutch-speaking Dr. Daniel Ch Overduin, Vita, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1992, pp. 2-3].
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 9:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Rubbish. Advocacy and power of attorney cover these situations>>
McReally?
Didn't you read OzSpens post?
"Advocacy and power of attorney" are theoretical protections.
The Remmelink Report is empirical evidence that refutes your assurances.
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 9:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oxspen- please do elaborate on the thousands of involuntarily terminated patients, the depth of their lack of explicit permission, what qualified as explicit permission in Dutch law and what falls short, why doctors went ahead supposedly against their wishes, etc, the statistics relating to the state of the patients, a link, etc.
And lets not forget how this relates to Dutch law and allowances of medical conduct- because there is a lot of details I would like to know about the background factors leading up to the report.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 10:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The socalled 80 percent popular support is not representative because the community misunderstands the meaning of euthanasia. There is widespread mistaken belief that euthanasia is the withdrawal of medication or of life support systems. Let's be clear about what euthanasia is. It is the termination of human life by lethal injection or other lethal means, set up by another party. This definition would not attract majority support.

Euthanasia is against doctors' ethics. The doctor breaks the Hippocratic oath, which has been used for 2500 years. Doctors would be faced with medical ethics conflict -- healing on one hand and killing on the other.

It opens all barriers to killing the vulnerable. Irrespective of whatever "safeguards" are built into euthanasia legislation, there will be abuse in its administration. It will lead to uncaring relatives and/or doctors imposing death on unwilling or unaware persons at a time when they are sick/fragile and vulnerable. Sick persons, whilst in a state of depression, could agree to death by euthanasia, whereas, given time, they would prefer to live on.

The legislation of euthanasia would lead to a flood of home murders by persons who will claim to be compassionately motivated -- refer to the British case of fratricide where the perpetrator was acquitted.

It would frighten certain people from seeking proper medical treatment. Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, in serious cases, were frightened to seek medical advice for fear of being "euthanised", when the Territory's euthanasia legislation was in force.

Government has no rights to authorise death on other than criminal grounds. It ought to provide palliative care for the very sick.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:23:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""once you legalise euthanasia for those who choose death, you inevitably introduce euthanasia for those who are unable to make the choice for themselves. It's the old slippery slope."
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 6:15:14 PM

Rubbish. Advocacy and power of attorney cover these situations.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 8:54:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard

TTM At 40 or such, you can make a will for and too your own out-comes. If you wish to die, these codes will, see that your wishes are granted. These are only in the NO return's of human life. Its not a open panel for The end of life, but more if your or you that watches death to see whats inside you.

Quality of life! If there is none, or by your religion or such,...................... A vet is more apparently the choice of humanity.

You do love you pets?

And human is what?

Not good enough?

Go to the people that have had a good life, trust me, I speak their thoughts and to them, or, and go too a confusing home and see what they say.

Your judge-ment will be called.

And when your old, What will become of you.

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear.

I hope you can get to the toilet on time.

I will, at this point in time, j.....when the time comes.

and not you.

TTM
Posted by think than move, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The socalled 80 percent popular support is not representative because the community misunderstands the meaning of euthanasia. There is widespread mistaken belief that euthanasia is the withdrawal of medication or of life support systems. Let's be clear about what euthanasia is. It is the termination of human life by lethal injection or other lethal means, set up by another party. This definition would not attract majority support."

Could have fooled me, because I was under the impression that Euthanasia was precisely what you described it actually being and that was what I supported INSTEAD of withdrawal of treatment, as I was under the assumption that the ACTUAL definition was more humane than death by nutrient starvation.

But please do inform people of the correct definition we both agree on and then put it to referendum!

Oh, and the whole "what if they change their mind" tangent- funny thing is they are free to change their mind at any time right up until the drugs are injected into their system- which might leave a few minutes or error- supposing there was no consultation to measure the resolve of the patient to definitely go through with treatment. To deny them the RIGHT of a choice at all, on the off chance in the future they would definitely get a will to live (despite the prospect of that scenario failing to win them over to begin with) is stupid and lacks any actual thought beyond picking which arguments to recycle and throw in.

Oh, and I would like you also to explain to me how- and why- the doctors (or professional euthanist) euthanized the individuals involuntarily.
I'm interested in the specific cases as I imagine they would easily be addressed by alternative legal measures (and alternatively, unlikely to be prevented if euthanasia were illegal).
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 12:32:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

You asked: "Oh, and I would like you also to explain to me how- and why- the doctors (or professional euthanist) euthanized the individuals involuntarily.
I'm interested in the specific cases as I imagine they would easily be addressed by alternative legal measures (and alternatively, unlikely to be prevented if euthanasia were illegal)."

I was sitting beside my dying mother's hospital bed. Mum had not said she was experiencing severe pain and a nurse (not a Dr.) said to me, "I can take her away more quickly with extra morphine". This NURSE would have euthanised my mother involuntarily if I had not intervened. And this was happening when euthanasia was illegal.
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 4:11:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G,

You wrote: "If the world could rid itself of all religions, then commonsense would prevail and the world wouldn't be so divided!
Dictionary.com gives one of the definitions of religion as: "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices".

Therefore your anti-religious religion (a set of beliefs and practices) is OK but heaven help those who go to Church!

Commonsense will prevail when you become consistent in your definition of religion and realise that you are as religious as anyone else on this forum (based on the Dictionary.com definition).
Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 4:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some quotes from the article:
“choice”
“choice”
“choose”
“choice”
“choice”
“choosing”
“choice”
“choose”
“choice”
“choice”
“choice”
Hmmm, sounds familiar.
Trouble is, like the people who’ve historically “argued” for “rights” on this basis, proponents of euthanasia do not take into account other affected parties.
Just like abortion doctors will destroy an eight month old foetus without its consent, there will be euthanasia doctors (and nurses, as OzSpen relates) who take the lives of those who are unable to consent or haven’t even been asked.
No laws can stop this informal process, as the Dutch experience demonstrates.
“We’ll just speed along the process to make this bed available.”
“I wouldn’t want to suffer like they are, so clearly they would want me to do this.”
Euthanasia advocacy is just another example of promoting “human rights” of those who want the right to “choose” while paying lip service (laws which can’t be enforced) to the impact on others.
Needless to say, anyone who is against euthanasia is vilified as a religious right reactionary.
Hmmm, sounds like another familiar “argument”.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 8:58:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Remmelink Report is ...."
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 9:49:46 PM

The Remmelink Report ... refers to a situation of 20 years ago, when palliative care, the overall debate and views about application, advocacy etc was less advanced.
.................................................................

It ought to provide palliative care for the very sick.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:23:25 PM

Palliative Care needs to grow to be the ultimate service it can be, yet there are and will be cases that optimal palliative care does not provide relief for - it is only those cases that ought to be considered for euthanasia.
...............................................................

abortion doctors will destroy an eight month old foetus without its consent, there will be euthanasia doctors (and nurses, as OzSpen relates) who take the lives of those who are unable to consent or haven’t even been asked. No laws can stop this informal process, as the Dutch experience demonstrates.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 8:58:36 AM

Any "eight month old foetus [terminated legally] without its consent" is because it will not live to be able to provide its consent i.e. it will die within one yr.

No laws will stop the informal hastening of death that occurs now. The Dutch experience is 20 years out of date, so current proposals need to be looked at in light of current societal views, and an optimal 21st century palliative care program.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 9:40:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pretty much McReal.

It's funny actually.
As Ozpen said himself (and proving me right), this was one zealous nurse who would have taken it upon herself anyway regardless of the legality- and more specifically, the whole matter was up to her- I think a better system would be to have a specialist euthanizer who must be summoned, legally, by request of the patient, and only these individuals have right to do so (and there ARE lots of humane people willing to do it).

And "Commonsense will prevail when you become consistent in your definition of religion and realise that you are as religious as anyone else on this forum (based on the Dictionary.com definition)."

This implies my worries of sincerely not being able to grasp anything beyond a religious order.
The reason we keep picking on religious people so much (perhaps too generally) in the euthanasia debate (and abortion) is the sheer irrationality of opposing something that is logical and in many dimensions humane to do, based on nothing but values passed through indoctrination, shared only by people who follow others thoughts, instead of evaluating the issue more deeply that 'euthanasia could be abused (due to specific reasons) but must be banned outright for everyone just in case'.

And as Proxy demonstrated (aside from all emotion and no logic in his crazy rants), is a MASSIVE disability to comprehend personal willpower- because such people tend not the HAVE any of their own, being so used to following a hierarchy- even in views of the world.

And you STILL haven't told me more about the Dutch patients- you merely gave an implication that a doctor or nurse saw them in pain and jabbed the needle in AGAINST their wishes.
This isn't going well.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 10:38:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a religious person and an ex health worker. I support euthanasia for anyone dying in agonising and/or hopeless circumstances provided that person has requested with their Care Team at some point in the progress of their illness or through an advanced health directive.

To all you other 'holy rollers' out there I say God would oft times get his job done much better without the interference of Man trying to play God.

How often did I see during my 12 year nursing career, horrific attempts by Doctors & Nursing Staff to maintain life in the face of unspeakable suffering and minimal odds of medium to long term survival? Far too many ...

And dear reader, if you, like me would rather avoid the fate of being kept alive at all costs I suggest you make a Health Directive that clearly outlines what treatment you will accept and under what circumstances. In the absence of consent (if you are unconcious or unable to communicate) Doctors will treat you as they see fit - which may be vigorous attempts to prolong life. Don't rely on your next of kin knowing what you want - they may be ignored.

However I also concede that for as long as I've known there have been those kindly Doctors and carers who have increased the dose of narcotic painkiller (usually morphine) to the point where unconciousness, respiratory failure and death occur where the suffering of the patient has been profound and hard to manage. God Bless Them!

BTW a lot of that so-called involuntary euthanasia quoted in the report on Netherlands would almost certainly been carried out on end-stage illness where the patient had lost conciousness or in cases of advanced dementia or other states of total incompetency in the moribund person. I take that report with the proverbial grain of salt
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:15:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Palliative care, at its humane best, will use morphine to minimize pain. That usually works, at a modest dose-rate, for a while. As pain increases, in conjunction with disease progression and together with the patient’s body becoming increasingly insensitive to the drug, palliative care requires increased dose-rates.
That is standard practice. However, if no other cause intervenes, it will lead to death.
A nasty business, no doubt, to the pro-suffering brigade; and going on some of their posts it would be euthanasia. I expect they might be horrified that there would be some patients beyond capability of speech, perhaps in the absence of any direct request for life-threatening dosages of pain relief from a patient in obvious agony; preferring “suffer until my God takes you”. That is not entirely hypothetical: a nurse in Charters Towers a few decades back was charged by the local police with just such a “crime”, and faced lengthy court procedure as a result.
Those countering civilized and sensitive legislation on voluntary euthanasia have not improved on the dour Scots Presbyterians who campaigned against the use of anaesthetic during childbirth when that became available in Scotland: that it was God’s will that women should suffer in childbirth.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 2:20:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
divine_msn

That was a really good post. I guess it shows that it's a lot easier to argue on morality when you are not witness to the effects of your argument. A good point also on the fact that doctors "play god" by extending life to a point far beyond the natural limit.

It seems to me that doctors see death as disease that needs to be treated, instead of accepting it as an inevitable part of life
Posted by Fragmachine, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 4:05:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richie 10
“it is an individual choice , please have the intestinal fortitude not to involve others in your preferences, for politicians are not responsible for your personal choices, you are.”

Well then, it‘s O.K if we push the politicians and doctors out of the way of the drugs cabinets and take the drugs we need to die with peace and dignity is it? At the moment they don’t give us that choice.

Putting a bullet though ones brain would be a pretty messy find for our loved ones. If we somehow fail and manage to live with half our head and face shot off that also would not be a pleasant outcome for our relatives plus the fact that we would probably end up in a vegetative state.

We could hang ourselves from a rafter in the shed or maybe a branch in the bush, what a lonely, cold, terrifying death that would be. When you are as sick as a dog confined to hospital on very necessary pain killing drugs you would hardly be in a state to go and buy a rope, pick up a chair or drive a car. Besides the nurses are very disinclined to let you leave the hospital until a doctor has signed a discharge form because they may be held responsible for letting you leave in an unfit condition. Especially if you drive a car while medicated and kill someone.

You could take Panadol, but if you take the wrong amount and you live , again you could wind up in a vegetative state.

There is no need for the politicians or Doctors to be responsible for our choices, so just hand over the drugs and we oldies are quite capable of administering them ourselves when needed. Or don't the politicans have the intestinal fortitude to do that.

I was in a ward with a woman dying from diabetes , many years ago, and she screamed all night in pain before dying the next day. Some Things are much worse than death, death is peaceful.
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 7:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZPEN <Here are some specific details of the slippery slope in the Netherlands>

Does it not occur to you that these Doctors and Nurses are at the coalface when people are dying. They are there night and day with the dying. Are all these dedicated , educated, experienced professionals somehow so deranged that they think it is necessary to callously kill the dying . Or do they know the realities having had years of experience watching people die.

I believe the laws were relaxed somewhat years ago to allow dying people in the last weeks and days to have as much pain killing medicine as required as their pain wasn’t being treated adequately enough.

As to the lethal doses of morphine, it is inevitable that if your pain reaches a point where the quantity you are having becomes useless against the pain that you have no choice but to take stronger and stronger doses until it kills you. Otherwise scream in agony for a week.

Bear in mind that not all deaths are equal. Some die a fairly quick sudden death that may not involve much suffering . Some die a death made peaceful at the end by pnuemonia, that is a gradual cutting off of their air until they go to sleep and die like people at high altitudes. Then there is the death where cancer is literally eating your main organs alive, not so peaceful I would think.

On that cheerful note I shall end this post.
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 7:52:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
However I also concede that for as long as I've known there have been those kindly Doctors and carers who have increased the dose of narcotic painkiller (usually morphine) to the point where unconciousness, respiratory failure and death occur where the suffering of the patient has been profound and hard to manage. God Bless Them! [Divine_msn].

Wholeheartedly agree Divine_msn and you are spot-on with your account.
Posted by we are unique, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 11:11:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal,

You stated: "No laws will stop the informal hastening of death that occurs now. The Dutch experience is 20 years out of date, so current proposals need to be looked at in light of current societal views, and an optimal 21st century palliative care program."

This is a straw man logical fallacy. Whether it was 20 days or 200 years ago does not affect the fact. The Dutch euthanasia experience proves that euthanasia legislation cannot stop the slippery slope of killing more people than the legislation permits.

If you want more recent facts, this report is as recent as 2004: Dutch Infant Euthanasia (http://www.nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL04/KillingBabies.html): "In 2004, Groningen University Medical Center made international headlines when it admitted to permitting pediatric euthanasia and published the 'Groningen Protocol,' infanticide guidelines the hospital followed when killing 22 disabled newborns between 1997 and 2004. The media reacted as if killing disabled babies in the Netherlands was something new. But Dutch doctors have engaged in infanticide for more than 15 years. (A Dutch government-supported documentary justifying infant euthanasia played on PBS in 1993. Moreover, a study published in 1997 in the Lancet determined that in 1995, about 8 percent of all infants who died in the Netherlands—some 80 babies—were euthanized by doctors, and not all with parental consent; this figure was reproduced in a subsequent study covering the year 2001.)".

Twenty years or 5 years ago, the Dutch did not stop the slide into a practice of euthanasia beyond the boundaries of legislation. It cannot be contained.

We hear lots of talk about "choice" in euthanasia. Couldn't the paedophiles, DV perpetrators and thieves make the same claim? "It's my choice". This is the logical conclusion of a "choice" ethic.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 13 May 2010 5:45:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

You wrote:
"This implies my worries of sincerely not being able to grasp anything beyond a religious order.
The reason we keep picking on religious people so much (perhaps too generally) in the euthanasia debate (and abortion) is the sheer irrationality of opposing something that is logical and in many dimensions humane to do, based on nothing but values passed through indoctrination, shared only by people who follow others thoughts, instead of evaluating the issue more deeply that 'euthanasia could be abused (due to specific reasons) but must be banned outright for everyone just in case'".

When will you quit your presuppositional bigotry so that we can engage in a rational discussion
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 13 May 2010 5:48:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cherful,

You wrote: "Does it not occur to you that these Doctors and Nurses are at the coalface when people are dying. They are there night and day with the dying. Are all these dedicated , educated, experienced professionals somehow so deranged that they think it is necessary to callously kill the dying . Or do they know the realities having had years of experience watching people die".

So experience, in your view, provides them with legitimacy to engage in unethical behaviour that violates government laws? Not once have I ever made a suggestion of these medical people as being "deranged". This is an emotive red herring argument that interferes with our engaging in a reasonable conversation when you use this kind of language in your response.

Your view is: "As to the lethal doses of morphine, it is inevitable that if your pain reaches a point where the quantity you are having becomes useless against the pain that you have no choice but to take stronger and stronger doses until it kills you. Otherwise scream in agony for a week".

That was not the case with my mother. She had no increasing pain, and yet a nurse wanted to kill her with a lethal dose of morphine. Why? He, the nurse, did not say, but beds are short in some public hospitals. He wanted to treat my mother as a dog and put her down. This was not a compassionate end to life for my beloved mother. It was a deliberate attempt to kill her prematurely - and all without her or the family's permission.

Who gives anybody, doctor or nurse, the right to take the life of any human being? Palliative care options are very special in 21st century Australia. Caring for the dying is the humane option, rather than killing them.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 13 May 2010 5:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Then only allow a specialist separate other than normal hospital carers, nurses and doctors to employ euthanasia- and only on the grounds of being summoned by the patient or if the patient is incapable of doing so, proof of a previous clause of intent to die in such situations had been expressed by the patient- and see how that goes.
Or utilize additional training and accountability procedures to ensure hospital staff do not extend euthanasia without consent of patients (especially at point of about to perform the procedures).
Limitless possibilities to prevent abuse.

Also, I'm interested about your story about the nurse- he WANTED to give a lethal dose of morphine (which he expressed to you verbally I presume), but would not elaborate a motive?

And you haven't elaborated more on the circumstances of the Dutch cases.
(except refer another one of disabled infantacide without parental permission, at least).

Oh, but I love this one;
"We hear lots of talk about "choice" in euthanasia. Couldn't the paedophiles, DV perpetrators and thieves make the same claim? "It's my choice". This is the logical conclusion of a "choice" ethic."

Now that's just childish and playing dumb- you know who's choice Euthanasia advocates endorse. I'm not even sure you can even grasp this issue properly as you actually DO keep walking into every bigoted presupposition I lay out.

You want a "rational discussion" but your irrational Malcolm-King-style statements makes this quite impossible. Instead we have a large group of kindergarten teachers trying had to educate two or three irrational kids.

But do prove me wrong!
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 13 May 2010 10:21:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only reason that euthanasia remains illegal in Australia, despite overwhelming public support, is that both major political parties are captive to the insidious and undemocratic dictates of the Christian churches.

End of story.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 13 May 2010 10:33:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ is forever bagging Christianity, but other religions oppose suicide and euthanasia. For example,

Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice.
Qur'an 17:33

Allah decides how long each of us will live

When their time comes they cannot delay it for a single hour nor can they bring it forward by a single hour.
Qur'an 16:61

And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term.
Qur'an 3:145

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/euthanasia.shtml

I support voluntary euthanasia, but I see no worth in abusing opponents as Christian zealots or dupes when many have very real concerns that need to be acknowledged and addressed.

With the prejudice being shown against 'older' people (now 40+!) in employment, the encouragement through wedge politics of jealousy directed against 'Boomers' for their houses and assets and the politics being played about increasing age pension and health costs, it is easy to see why some people would be concerned about possible initiatives to free up hospital beds and lower health and pension costs. This can be done by making older people feel even less valued and needed than is presently the case. Yes, that would be a bit of a stretch (sic) but there are some commentators abroad who are equal to that task.

Then there are the greedy relatives wanting the inheritance sooner rather than later. Medical costs can wipe out an inheritance in a very short time and bang goes the new Beamer or holiday funded by Gran's life savings through austerity.

So yes, it is reasonable to expect that some would need a lot of convincing before agreeing to voluntary euthanasia and more so where they have never had any personal experience of the cruelty of some mental (as mentioned by one poster) and physical illnesses.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 13 May 2010 2:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower, I know comprehension isn't your forte, but are you suggesting that the major political parties take anything like as much notice of the sensibilities of Australian Muslims with respect to euthanasia as they do the highly organised and effective Christian lobby?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 13 May 2010 2:58:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I congratulate David Swanton on his thought provoking, reasoned and compassionate article.

Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia is a group formed with the aim of showing our MPs there are many thinking Christians included in the 4 out of 5 people in Australia who support having the choice of having an assisted death, when faced with a hopeless or terminal illness and suffering that cannot be relieved. (Newspoll 2007). We seek to counter the vocal Christian minority who oppose what we perceive as compassionate and caring legislation. Check out our website: www.Christiansforve.org.au

To suggest that those supporting voluntary euthanasia do not understand the meaning is an attempt to mislead. The question asked by Newspoll was, "Thinking now about voluntary euthanasia. If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose, or not?" 47% said yes to a similar question in 1962, and support has risen steadily since then, to 85% Australia-wide in 2009.

Comments and reports on the situation in the Netherlands from 20 years ago are outdated, as the laws there were changed in 2002. Belgium and Luxembourg now also have legal assisted dying.

Eleven years experience with Physician assisted Dying in Oregon, USA, has shown a system that assists the dying, with no evidence of abuse, and arguably the best palliative care available in USA – surely a win for everybody. Washington State has now joined Oregon, after a referendum, and Montana after a court case on individual rights.
Posted by IanVE4ME, Thursday, 13 May 2010 2:59:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan

I am suggesting that once again you have dropped back into your familiar rut and your prejudice is showing.

What about giving your parlour games of labelling and provoking fights a rest for a while and join in the discussion?
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 13 May 2010 3:08:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh come on, Cornflower. You began your first post in the thread with a snipe at me, obviously intended to "provoke a fight". You're so disingenuous.

If you'd read through the discussion, my comment about the undue influence of the Christian lobby on the major political parties in Australia was very much on topic. I didn't "label" or "provoke a fight" with anybody.

Why don't you practise what you preach for a change?

IanVE4ME - it's good to see that there's some Christians who are actively supporting the legalisation of euthanasia. I wish you every success.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 13 May 2010 3:25:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan, "IanVE4ME - it's good to see that there's some Christians who are actively supporting the legalisation of euthanasia. I wish you every success."

That is the way CJ, now that wasn't too hard now was it? Soon you might even accept that few Christians are the feared 'fundies' of your nightmares and the greatest majority are quite ordinary people who are flexible enough to be convinced by argument.

Likewise it isn't only the 'Christian lobby' that seeks to influence government.

It is not the Fifties and few Australians would allow themselves to be swayed by an interfering priest (likely to have the opposite effect), so there is every reason to suggest that the opposition to euthanasia is founded mainly in concerns and misgivings outside of religious belief. Survey respondents might say 'yes' in theory, but it is obvious it isn't a burning issue with voters and very likely there are unresolved fears about practical problems in operation, especially in a society that doesn't seem to respect or care for the old and infirm.

As well as the predictable religious concerns about euthanasia, the BBC came up with ethical, practical and historical concerns that would be at work here too. Rather than cut and paste the list, here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 13 May 2010 5:52:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

You wrote: "But do prove me wrong!"

Not when you don't know how to assess the logical consequences of a "choice" world and life view.
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 13 May 2010 6:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""McReal,You stated: "No laws will stop the informal hastening of death that occurs now. The Dutch experience is 20 years out of date, so current proposals need to be looked at in light of current societal views, and an optimal 21st century palliative care program."

"This is a straw man logical fallacy. Whether it was 20 days or 200 years ago does not affect the fact. The Dutch euthanasia experience proves that euthanasia legislation cannot stop the slippery slope of killing more people than the legislation permits."
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 13 May 2010 5:45:15 AM

No it's not "a straw man logical fallacy" - its directly about the point[s] you raised and contextual.

What is a straw man logical fallacy is reference to 'the other categories' in this -

"" We hear lots of talk about "choice" in euthanasia. Couldn't the paedophiles, DV perpetrators and thieves make the same claim? "It's my choice". "

We need optimal palliative care, and an option for the patient if that does not work which includes advocacy, power of attorney, and a medical panel. Hastening of death with morphine is a minor hastening, anyway.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 13 May 2010 6:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re the effectiveness of palliative care.

Dr Roger Hunt, a respected senior Palliative Care Specialist, in South Australia, who has strongly and consistently advocated the need for the legal option of Voluntary Euthanasia, said this in an email to me last year.

“Just about all dying patients experience suffering and the extent to which it can be relieved is difficult to quantify.

Certainly the suffering is such that between 5 and 10% of dying cancer patients request VE. The last resort in palliative care is to provide ‘pharmacological oblivion’”.

Pharmacological oblivion means the suffering person is put into a coma until they die from starvation (slow) or dehydration (quicker). Is this the most humane way of dying that our society can come up with?
Posted by IanVE4ME, Thursday, 13 May 2010 8:21:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OZ PEN <you say the nurse wanted to kill your mother with a lethal dose of Morphine.>

Why then did he ask you if that is want you wanted for your mother, presumably to end her suffering. He was giving you the choice or else he wouldn’t have asked you. he would have just done it. You exercised your right of choice in saying no. No slippery slope there.

The slippery slope statistics you quote may be just an honest revealing of something that could not be revealed before in case of prosecution .

So you think it’s kind to let severely disabled children live. I think it is very cruel. I often look at some of these poor people and think how much better it would have been if they had been allowed or assisted to die at birth rather than have to live the way they do. I’m talking about the severely disabled people here not the ones who can function reasonably adequately.
How would you like to live in a body that writhes and jerks (severely )none- stop 24hrs a day for the whole of your life? They would probably die anyway in a lot of cases without medical life support. Morpine and assistance is probably given out of compassion rather than to let them die slowly as they would without life support.

They wouldn’t be upset about not being alive because they wouldn’t know they weren’t alive. Only the living can get themselves in a nonsensical state about death because they can think about it
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 13 May 2010 8:26:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree completely Cherful. My ethical stance sits quite similarly.

Ozpen- well, the full logical consequences of the "choice" in question is simple;

1- The patient's choice will result in being euthanized and dead as a result, or choosing to continue without it in their current state. No, it really is that simple- they choose to get treatment to end their life or they don't bring it up and refuse the option if proposed.

2- If granted permission, the euthanizer would THEN, and ONLY then, have the right to kill that person. If not granted permission, that person would be committing murder just like in any other situation where the person they killed did not grant permission in any form.
If you are so concerned about nurses and carers being granted the rights, grant it exclusively to a separate medical practitioner (perhaps as a separate license), along with regulations about conduct of the practitioner regarding suggesting it etc.
In fact, on three posts I have given you plenty of alternatives which you conveniently neglect to address.

You see, if a person were open-minded about the issue, but concerned about the specific 'slippery-slope' implications, they would want to discuss the alternative proposals to prevent it- you don't, despite many chances to do so. It seems you are opposed to Euthanasia on principle.
As long as you continually fail to try a little harder to analyze the problem beyond the old 'if we make it legal doctors will start arbitrarily killing patients for some reason' rubbish without even entertaining anything deeper to get around the problem, don't be surprised if nobody feels that is a good enough reason to deny what 80% consider a basic right.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 13 May 2010 9:37:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll just leave this here:

Angels on the sideline,
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.

Don't these talking monkeys know that
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it.
Right in two.

Angels on the sideline,
Baffled and confused.
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose.
And this is what they choose...

Monkey killing monkey killing monkey
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade,
And where there's one
they're bound to divide it,
Right in two.
Right in two.
Posted by Fragmachine, Friday, 14 May 2010 12:43:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Monkey killing monkey killing monkey.
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs.
They make a club.
And beat their brother, down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.

Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Cut it all right in two

Fight over the clouds, over wind, over sky
Fight over life, over blood, over prayer,
overhead and light
Fight over love, over sun,
over another, Fight...

Angels on the sideline again.
Benched along with patience and reason.
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end.

Cut it all right in two
RIGHT IN TWO!

Right in two...
Posted by Fragmachine, Friday, 14 May 2010 12:44:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

You wrote: "You see, if a person were open-minded about the issue, but concerned about the specific 'slippery-slope' implications, they would want to discuss the alternative proposals to prevent it- you don't, despite many chances to do so. It seems you are opposed to Euthanasia on principle".

You write as though I'm not the one being open-minded. You are just as closed-minded as I am. You don't want to see the historical examples I have given as reasons why the "slippery-slope" cannot be contained.

I don't accept your view that euthanasia is treatment, but it is the killing of a human being who is not an animal.
Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 14 May 2010 5:58:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Ozpen I am much more open minded, because I at least could give examples and solutions to counter your 'historic examples' of the "slippery slope" of which you could not even elaborate upon.

Furthermore, its clear you really cannot grasp the concept very strongly either.
Euthanasia IS killing someone WHO REQUESTS TO BE KILLED in a humane manner. What? Did you think we didn't know that? Or is it too hard for your to comprehend? (if it is, then maybe you really shouldn't be weighing in on the issue)

Anyway, I'm starting to get bored- we're starting to run around in circles as you continually get confused or let passion take over.
And really, I'm quite happy to call it off unless your next post is different and more insightful- (more a fair warning than an expectation) and I'm quite confident to leave and let others read the posts between us so far.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 14 May 2010 9:27:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We may have a right to life but we don't have a duty to live for as long as we possibly can. Once the process of dying has begun a person in their right mind should be allowed to call it quits when he or she wants to. (And yes Pope-o-philes may extend their suffering in exchange for a favourable outcome in the afterlife)
Posted by gusi, Saturday, 15 May 2010 4:07:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If anything like 80% of us want euthanasia legalized, have done so for years but still don't have it, does that not indicate what a sham democracy is allowed to govern us? As the original article pointed out, it is government and politicians who are to blame. But we also need to accept some blame as voters who keep them in power.

What are you going to do about it?

Refuse to vote?
Refuse to vote for any member of a political party?
Waste your time contacting politicians?
Attend training with the Taliban or Al Quaeda?

Any little may help, and may go some way to fixing some other matters that remain wrong despite public wishes, just like euthanasia.
Posted by Forkes, Saturday, 15 May 2010 8:56:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If anything like 80% of us want euthanasia legalized, have done so for years but still don't have it, does that not indicate what a sham democracy is allowed to govern us?"

Yes it does Forkes.

Sadly the only way to get around this is to convince enough people to vote for the largest party that corresponds to their needs AND makes a point of legalizing euthanasia- or to vote for a party that advocates citizen initiated referenda- and there are a LOT of these parties which, quite frankly are more than capable of governing us- the actual PROBLEM is (partly thanks to compulsory voting) there are too many people that don't give a toss about politics but vote familiar parties and buy into the various myths about any other parties and leave the polling station with the same old rubbish.

So, long story short- we need to start getting the lazy people to look up some local candidates every three years, somehow.
(and yes, it IS lazy to do any less, and a massive disservice for our country).
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 15 May 2010 11:11:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fragmachine wrote: "It seems to me that doctors see death as disease that needs to be treated, instead of accepting it as an inevitable part of life"

Well.. how's that for a spectacularly sweeping and inaccurate generalisation? Fragmachine, you have written the odd insightful comment in this thread, but this was not amongst them and I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

I am a doctor and I know three things to be true:

1. yeah most of the time we are trying to avoid death, as for most of the hospital inpatient population it IS avoidable and they will walk out with a good quality of life. plus premature deaths tend to invite lawsuits and irate families.

2. for some patients, pre-existing co-morbidities combined with whatever is happening right then, means that they are next to no chance of walking out with any quality of life. For these people, the focus shifts to keeping them comfortable.

3. a proportion of patients fall somewhere in between and they are the ones where it is difficult to know what to do, especially when a good plan is not in place prior to an acute deterioration

I know plenty about the inevitability of death, I see it far more often than you do, I would wager.
Posted by stickman, Sunday, 16 May 2010 9:14:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Over 30% of Euthanasia Cases in Belgian Region Did Not Give Consent:

" In one region of Belgium, over 30 percent of reported euthanasia cases were carried out without the consent of the patient, a study has found. At the same time, the overall number of official reported deaths by euthanasia are dramatically increasing in the country since the practice was legalized in 2002, with 40 per cent more cases reported for 2009 than the previous year.

A team of Belgian and Dutch end-of-life researchers circulated a questionnaire to physicians who signed death certificates of patients who died in the Belgian region of Flanders between June and November 2007. The study showed that of the 208 reported Flemish deaths involving the use of “life-ending drugs,” 142 were killed with “an explicit patient request,” and 66 “were without an explicit request."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051903.html
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 20 May 2010 10:45:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again, this is down to caretakers also automatically doubling as euthanisers (now my fifth time I believe I said it)- and that would be without actually investigating the motives of the doctors (except possible attempts to sell organs on the black market as implied by the article).

Also, I like how you quoted how euthanasia is 'dramatically increasing' since being legalized. I would never have guessed!
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 20 May 2010 11:51:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a different slant on the same study referred to by "Proxy"

Despite fears to the contrary, the use of drugs to end life without patient request has not increased since euthanasia was legalised in Belgium, states an article in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are controversial issues in the medical world. There are fears that the legalisation of euthanasia will result in an increase in the use of life-ending drugs without explicit patient request, especially for vulnerable people such as seniors.

Euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide have been decriminalised in the US states of Oregon (1997) and Washington State (2009), as well as three European countries: Belgium and the Netherlands (2002) and Luxemburg (2009). Recently, the legalisation debate has ignited in several countries, including Canada where a proposed bill was defeated by Parliament in April and the National Assembly of Quebec has launched consultations.

The CMAJ study by a team of Belgian and Dutch researchers found 208 physician-assisted deaths in their sample of death certificates in Flemish Belgium. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide occurred in 2% of all Flemish deaths and the use of life-ending drugs without request occurred in 1.8% of deaths. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were performed often in patients younger than 80 years (79.6%), in cancer patients (80.2%) and in people dying at home (50.3%). The use of life-ending drugs without explicit request often involved patients over the age of 80 (53%) and deaths in hospital ( 67%).

Despite the lack of explicit patient request, the use of life-ending drugs was in most cases discussed with patients' families and health professional colleagues.

'The use of life-ending drugs without explicit patient request occurs predominantly in hospital and among elderly patients who are mostly in an irreversible coma or demented,' write Dr Kenneth Chambaere, Vrije Universiteit, Brussel, and coauthors. 'This fits the description of 'vulnerable' patient groups at risk of life-ending without request. Due attention should therefore be paid to protecting these particular patient groups from such practices. However, these patients are not proportionally more at risk than other patient groups.'

Source: http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=10051856-euthanasia-the-use-end-of-life-drugs-without-explicit-reques
Posted by IanVE4ME, Friday, 21 May 2010 12:05:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is surprising that more have not commented on the author's credentials. He is hypocritical as he claims that he is an ethicist, but then promotes euthanasia. It is like Dracula claiming that he is a vegetarian.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 21 May 2010 2:51:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou IanVE4ME- I suspected something like that would be the case but I am very impressed with the major details you found that some individuals felt the need to leave out.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 21 May 2010 10:35:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy