The increasing proportion of the very old in Australia's population makes this article even more timely.

Our society is responsibility-averse. Hence, it seems, no-one wishes to make an official decision to pull the plug when a patient is unconscious and barely existing (on many tubes).

It seems that whenever the issue of termination of a particular person's life comes up (officially) special review procedures need to be set up then exhausted. Next of kin, doctors, medical boards, lawyers and judges (and politicians can be roped in also) are all brought in to review decisions.

This process of termination decision making may well turn out to more expensive than the just supporting a patient for another year on the tubes (say costing $200,000?). But its politically easier NOT to officially terminate (artificially maintained) life.

I've experienced the death of friends and relatives from cancer. Here the necessarily unofficial, extra-legal practice, most widely used, comes in. This is doctors agreeing (or suggestin) to turn up the morphine (or other drugs) over a few days, until the body cannot cope with the dose.

Given medical costs are becoming unsustainable I think the decision on termination should rely on next of kin and doctors rather than in the end fall to lawyers (who subsequently become judges and politicians).

It is regrettable that 'life and death' comes down to dollars and cents. If only we as a society were more interested in the real value of a human life, as God intended it, the fear of aging, the decay of our bodies, and the inevitable death will subside considerably – and perhaps these funds used to prolong our physical life will be better used to help the dieing children around us, and most of all the millions who die in eternal alienation of The Creator of life.

"While the debate on tax continues to rage and the productivity commission looks into the medical workforce, a topic crucial to both is rarely mentioned. Death. That’s right. I said it."

You did indeed and in 5 days just 2 comments.

Well said Tanveer, and the reason: loss of religious faith. In former generations it was otherwise.

I am reminded of the Islamic terrorists who say to the hated Westerner, "you love life, we love death!"

We Christians also love life, but through Jesus we have life that is eternal. Jesus's love drives out fear.

"Death has been swallowed up in victory."
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
.... thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 15:54,55)

Comments like the one above reflect the common problem of this blog.

It appears that Christian fundamentalism frustrate intelligent secular debate.

And there is an odd fixation with easy targets like fundamentalist Islam.

How about truly and comprehensively addressing the subject matter of Tanveer's article.

You may develop an additional skill to copy typing a very old book.

I'm an Anglican - but I humbly add only the very obsessed quote scripture on a socio-political blog.

There, thats a fourth post.

Plantaganet

Plantagenet,

You describe yourself as an Anglican, but will only tolerate secular debate. What sort of Anglican are you? Your “faith” would seem a rather pale weak nominal affair.

And do you set the rules on this forum? Grow up!

You ask “how about truly and comprehensively addressing the subject matter of Tanveer's article.” Just so, how about it Plantaganet! Or is bile all you have to offer?

My own contribution, and I had just posted a two part contribution on another thread, was slight I agree, but at least I did, unlike you, read and interact with Tanveer’s article – go back and read my first sentence.

Dear David

Thankyou for not resorting to quotes from an old book in place of mature analysis. If we could now discuss Tanveers' article or even my earlier comments on it (which I repeat below) my faith in our faith might almost be restored.

"The increasing proportion of the very old in Australia's population makes this article even more timely.

Our society is responsibility-averse. Hence, it seems, no-one wishes to make an official decision to pull the plug when a patient is unconscious and barely existing (on many tubes).

It seems that whenever the issue of termination of a particular person's life comes up (officially) special review procedures need to be set up then exhausted. Next of kin, doctors, medical boards, lawyers and judges (and politicians can be roped in also) are all brought in to review decisions.

This process of termination decision making may well turn out to more expensive than the just supporting a patient for another year on the tubes (say costing $200,000?). But its politically easier NOT to officially terminate (artificially maintained) life.

I've experienced the death of friends and relatives from cancer. Here the necessarily unofficial, extra-legal practice, most widely used, comes in. This is doctors agreeing (or suggestin) to turn up the morphine (or other drugs) over a few days, until the body cannot cope with the dose.

Given medical costs are becoming unsustainable I think the decision on termination should rely on next of kin and doctors rather than in the end fall to lawyers (who subsequently become judges and politicians).

Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:59:18 AM"

Yours sincerely

Plantagenet.