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 > 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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
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
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 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
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
*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
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
>>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
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. Page 2
  4. All

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