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 > Church has a duty to be involved in euthanasia debate > Comments

Church has a duty to be involved in euthanasia debate : Comments

By Megan Best, published 2/9/2016

In any other group, a request for death would alert a doctor for urgent psychiatric review: why is this group of patients being treated so differently?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Well done Megan I think you demonstrate Andrews point very well. any religious groups can only represent that views of its members ( even that might be problematic). their perspective on any matter shouldn't hold no more weight them someone off the street.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 2 September 2016 9:51:42 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
Cogent well informed argument Megan! Thank you!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 2 September 2016 10:18:48 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
yes the medical reasoning was correct and should have stood on its own feet.
Family interference against healthy life was seen when people thought free Medicare had ended and rang the doctor to cancel a relative's appointment. The smell of inheriting in a Will must entice some families also.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 2 September 2016 10:23:40 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
As a medical practitioner for 30 years, it embarrasses me that doctors such as the author continue to patronise their patients and ignore evidence which they are duty bound to act upon.
As both sides of the euthanasia debate acknowledge, a small percentage of deaths, (perhaps less than 1%)involve irremediable suffering by fully aware and informed patients. It's nobody's fault: it's just what happens in any large population, despite optimal palliation. This small group and only this groupis the target audience for Voluntary Assisted Dying.
There is no conflict between Palliative Care and VAD: they are both essential but when palliation and medical treatment have nothing more to offer and suffering continues, then any sensible person needs the right to decide their own fate.
The church will never change; it continues to put its dogma ahead of people's lives. If the Catholic church had its way, abortion would still be illegal and society would pay the price in young women's lives.
Like Andrew Denton I have seen dying up close and because I am an insider who understands how the system works, my mother had a reasonably comfortable though not perfect death. I have also had patients who have died horribly because the law as it stands is inadequate to grant some patients' wishes or allow doctors to act on them.
I challenge the author to provide scientific evidence of the vulnerable elderly pressured to end their lives in counties where VAD is legal. Instead we find universal support amongst the populations granted the right to control their own lives and deaths.
The church has a duty to advise its followers only. It should not interfere with the lives of non-believers.
Shame on the author for her patronising ignorance.
Posted by TimH, Friday, 2 September 2016 10:25:22 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
Well said TimH, Megan should know to have references at the end of here article so readers can check her "studies".
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 2 September 2016 11:23:49 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
As much as I agree with Andrew Denton's feelings on euthanasia, I think that he is wrong to say that anyone who does not agree with him should keep their noses out of the discussion. And, while I agree that this writer has a right to express her opinion, I point to the fact that she is making her living from keeping people alive when, perhaps, they would rather she did not.

I also take umbrage at the arrogance of some doctors who think that they always know best. For instance, the totally unscientific diagnoses of Alzheimer's and dementia 'handed down' willy nilly, to the extent that there is suddenly a huge increase in the disease that is unbelievable. It has displaced old age and wear and tear on on body as the usual means of dying, plus aiding medicos to profit from something they know next to nothing about.

The fact of the matter of euthanasia is that there is no legal, dignified, peaceful way to kill yourself. As a member of an organisation promoting euthanasia for those wanting it, I know that DIY death is bulldust. You might be able to buy the appropriate drug (illegally) from overseas but, the Federal Police might get you and drag you and your family through the courts of, you might be sent a bottle of water for your $800. You might manage to use a plastic bag and nitrogen cylinder, but you have to provide photo recognition to buy nitrogren, and who knows what happens to that information. How about shooting, hanging or drowing? Jeez! I know of a man, who, two days ago, shot himself in his bathroom the same day he was diagnosed. A nice spectacle for his wife to find a short time later.

Until this vexed business is worked out, we really have to look to the likes of the writer take care of us. Politicians and holier-than-thou a..holes are, as usual, the problem here
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 2 September 2016 11:48:01 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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