The Forum > Article Comments > Bandt's rant > Comments
Bandt's rant : Comments
By Paul Russell, published 14/3/2012'End of life' decision making is not an appropriate euphemism for euthanasia.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 10:59:36 AM
| |
I too would like to voice my support for an inquiry into "end of life decision making".
What is voluntary euthanasia, and what is assisted suicide, and what are the differences between the two? Is there a third? What works, where and why? And what makes the highly charged phrase "state-sanctioned-killing" a better choice than the relatively neutral "end-of-life decision-making"? Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 12:32:54 PM
| |
Yabby has proved that he can use a search engine. Good for you!
Yes, at one time I worked for the Catholic Church in Adelaide. That was some years ago. I am no longer in their employ and HOPE is a private donor funded organisation with no formal links to any other organisation or church. Yabby, I get why you would want to use an alias for your posting; but using a name that means a creature with no spine? Come on? Posted by Pasul Russell, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 4:38:03 PM
| |
http://www.adelaide.catholic.org.au/sites/SouthernCross/features?more=1557
Indeed Paul, the old organisation promoted Catholic dogma and so does the new one. No doubt about it, the Catholics are great lobbyists and use all sorts of names to promote their agenda. Perhaps its best that we all know it and call a spade a spade, when we see a spade. Now some of us believe that Catholic dogma should be for Catholics. You have freedom of religion, we want freedom from religion. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 5:06:46 PM
| |
Yabby, that article was from at least four years ago.
Find me a comment on my website that relates in any way shape or form to what a reasonable person might understand to be a 'Catholic thought'. You can't. Why? Because it's not Catholic. It might suit your position on this issue to think so, but it ain't so. I respect my audience and those I argue with by trying to argue reason and common sense. How about you give that a try instead of 'Catholic baiting'? Posted by Pasul Russell, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 9:47:11 PM
| |
Paul, I am quite prepared to debate the issue in any which way that
you want. But lets establish some facts, judging by what you have written elsewhere. You seemingly accept the Catholic dogma as your own religious belief and are now paid to lobby against the introduction of voluntary euthanasia in Australia. So no matter what points I make, you are hardly going to accept any of them as valid. Lets also accept that the Catholic Church is a hugely wealthy organisation, AFAIK the world's largest owner of real estate just for one. Euthanasia is one of those points they have vowed to lobby against in any which way that they can. The church would also stand to lose revenue from their palliative care investments. How much that they contribute in indirect ways to your organisation, I simply don't know, but nothing surprises me anymore, when it comes to Catholic lobbying tactics. They would hardly admit this openly, or people like me just sit there and point out that its all just religious dogma. If it were up to me, all charitable institutions which benefit from paying no taxes, should be forced to openly disclose their financial affairs. Sadly that is not the case. Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 14 March 2012 11:01:42 PM
| |
Returning to the article for a moment, as far as I can see it makes only two points:
1. Suffering people make decisions about other things as well as whether or not they want to die. Granted. So what? Why draw an arbitrary line between, say, deciding to take enough morphine to numb the pain for a day, or taking enough to numb it forever? If someone is competent to do the first they are presumably competent enough to do the second. 2. Most Australians don't have an opinion on assisted dying. Maybe so, but again, so what? Most Australians don't have an opinion on leukaemia sufferers, road victims or identity theft, either, until it happens to them or someone they know. But to people who are in, or know people in, these unfortunate situations, these issues suddenly become very important indeed, and they have a right to pressure the government into making rational and human laws relating to them. As for your Catholicism, it merely helps to explain why you, and those like you, appear to have such trouble grasping that the right to die on request is a simple and obvious candidate for a basic human right to be guaranteed in legislation. "How could anyone be so silly?" we ask. "S/he's a theist," comes the explanation. "Ah, I see..." If you really think banning assisted dying can be defended in secular terms, without reference to the alleged pronouncements of a jealous and selfish God, then go ahead. Explain, in terms that an atheist can understand, why someone who is entitled to medical help to keep a painful and distressing life going should be deprived of that help if they choose to end it. Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 15 March 2012 7:31:20 AM
| |
Some good points by *Yabby & Jon J* i.m.o. but I think we are unlikely to get thing of a reasonable and a rationale nature from any of the frothing at the mouth zealots.
.. As previously mentioned, catholics in particular appear to have no regard for the "Freedom of Religion" of others, and to see how they carry on in other states where they are allowed to have more influence, it seems plain that they wish to impose their nonsensical clap trap and dogma on the majority. If in the alternative, they were to preach say: " ... well, for us, we believe in limiting marriage to a man and a woman, protecting the rights of the unborn above and beyond the rights of the mother, and not providing a right to end one's life during a time of extreme suffering at a moment of the individual's choosing, but respect the right of others to hold different views and beliefs ... " then I have no problem with that. But notwithstanding there are active religious organisations in this country who have alternative views, as well as those who do not choose to have anything to do with belief systems of whatever description, it appears quite plain that they have contempt for the views and religious freedoms of others. .. Metaphysically speaking, can you imagine ex Hitler youth *RatSinger* going up the mountain and appearing before our *Lord Satan?* Perhaps it went like this: " ... No, no *Ratsy* you need not come down. Just cover up for the paedophiles to protect Jesus's good name. ... " .. Have him tried and locked up I reckon, disband them as a nefarious political organisation and confiscate their lands for the benefit of more worthwhile organisations and spare any more suffering of children to have theirs or any other religious nonsense inflicted upon them, but rather offer an appreciation of the multitude of divergent views in the world and when they reach an age of majority, allow them to make their own choice. Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 15 March 2012 2:14:32 PM
| |
*While polls do consistently return an 80% vote for assistance to die the question cannot be taken as anything more than a vote based on a sense of compassion for those in need.*
Above from the article. Personally I don't think that a sense of compassion, is such a bad thing. It comes down to our human rights really. We had the Rossiter case in Perth. A man who through various misfortune and who had the best of palliative care, was in a situation where he could only move his lips. That was his only future and he simply did not want to continue like that for years. I felt great empathy for the fellow and the only choice we gave him, was to starve himelf to death. Hardly compassionate. If I was in his situation, I would certainly want a choice and some control about my future, other then starvation. As it happens, various Swiss friends of mine have attended end of life gatherings, mostly for people with terminal cancer, bedridden, who wanted to end things in a dignified way, surrounded by family. Without exception, they described the gatherings as very moving experiences. They are conducted by Exit Switzerland, an organisation of volunteers. An enlightened society should not need to torture its most vulnerable, in the name of religious dogma. Its overdue that we addressed this issue. In my opinion, lobbyists should come clean. If people lobby on behalf of business, I gather that they need to sign a lobbyists register. If religious folk want to lobby, fine, but at least we should know where they are coming from and that they are in fact religious, so we all know where we stand. To me that is just basic honesty. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 15 March 2012 7:14:21 PM
| |
>>While the intention of the question is clear, the use of 'end-of-life decision-making' is simply not appropriate. Patients make valid decisions about their care and their treatment options in the end-stages of life every day that have nothing to do with euthanasia or assisted suicide.<<
The phrase 'end-of-life decision-making' is appropriate: it is clear that Mr. Bandt meant it in the sense 'decisions made about the end of one's life' and not 'decisions made near the end of one's life' which is how Paul has chosen to (mis)interpret it. Cheers, Tony Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 16 March 2012 8:37:00 PM
|
I certainly do and it deserves support. He is also correct, it
won't be raised by the liberals or labour, who are too busy with
voting strategics to worry about the matter.
An inquiry would make perfect sense, as there is indeed much
misinformation around about various overseas systems which have
been implemented. We know that some systems work very well, others
less so. Establishing what would be best for Australia to finally
address this issue, is overdue.
As to the author, his Diocesan Centre for Family Life is a
Catholic lobby group as far as I can establish, so they would
continue to promote Catholic dogma and would no doubt be against
it. But then they would be against condoms too, no doubt.
But we also need laws to suit non Catholics.
Good on you Adam, for for it!