<<There are some heartless B3rstards in this discussion.>>

Yes, but only with this very selective discussion.

As a person with five medical conditions I did not ask for, I would hardly consider myself heartless.

I do though try to look at this matter from a rational perspective, being though a range of medical trials, treatments, surgeries, ambulance rides and long times in hospital. I am now in the position I am today and in a much better state, health wise. This took a lot of time to reach in regards to medical practice and advancement.

This process took over 10 years and some advancement is still continuing recovery wise. It could have been easier to simply have myself turned off, seeing my life being of limited value or look at myself from a cost of living perspective in terms of the taxpayer.

For example, my current medications are costing over $10,000 to subsidise.

<<Euthanasia is not, however, a question for the medical profession to decide.>>

Sorry, I'm not going to buy that.

Having high respect for the vast medical specialists I see and have benefited from which has come from their time in study, life experience, skills and knowledge, there is one important element to accept and that is:

A private relationship developed between a patient and a medical specialist, is just that, private. As a result, such a relationship should not be interfered with by any level of Government.

It's none of their business!

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

You wrote :

« Having high respect for the vast medical specialists I see and have benefited from which has come from their time in study, life experience, skills and knowledge, there is one important element to accept and that is:

A private relationship developed between a patient and a medical specialist, is just that, private. As a result, such a relationship should not be interfered with by any level of Government »
.

How right you are, NathanJ. I couldn’t agree with you more as regards the privacy of our relationship with medical staff and the non-interference of government at all levels.

However, on the very delicate question of who decides whether we should live or die, I consider that that is a personal decision which we should make ourselves, if we are able to do so. If not, it should be the person whom we designate to take such a decision for us (spouse, etc.). In my view, it is not something the medical profession, religion or the state should decide, as at present.

Naturally, there is nothing to prevent us, or the person whom we designate, from consulting these various instances, if we wish, but it should be our decision, not theirs, and we should not be submitted to any form of pressure whatsoever.

On this subject, I have noticed that some specialists recommend that patients establish a written declaration, in advance, of their wishes in the case of emergency, regarding life-sustaining treatment.

I think it is a good idea. It allows us to clearly state our personal views and to designate the person of our choice to decide for us, if it is not possible for us to take the decision ourselves.

.

To David.

[There are some heartless B3rstards in this discussion.]

Not sure who your meaning so I'll defend my stance too. I read somewhere that suicide incidents seem to come and go, but when they come they've been noticed to come in groups instead of just individual instances. From this observation (sorry I wish Ihad the article) it was theorized that the group of suicides are linked to the first person who killed themself. The remorse of their loss spreading until someone who knew that person also kills them self. This then continues the effect on others who knew the second person as well, which in a way spreads like a plague. In my opinion those hardest hit from sucide would be parents, siblings, and spouses. (Teens and young adults are susceptible to the strong emotions after a sucide.)

It is from this (and from knowing some people who later ended their lives), that I am against both suicide and empowering suicide with resources to assist it.

To Banjo Paterson. If you have the reference handy I'd like to see where you got your figures. I was under the impression that suicide was more common among teens and young adults then any other age group. And that frequent places of suicide are from jumping off tall bridges.

If those figures are right though that 8 die a day from suicide, and thirty more attempt it unsussfully, then wouldn't it be a horrible thing to empower that resolution with a painless way to die. Possibly 38 people a day. (Possibly more if it's a free choice for anyone. For those who might want to but don't attempt it). If saying no to suicide is heartless, then so be it. Suicide is a disease.

//If you have the reference handy I'd like to see where you got your figures.//

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2016~Main%20Features~Intentional%20self-harm:%20key%20characteristics~7

//I was under the impression that suicide was more common among teens and young adults then any other age group.//

Nope, and in fact if you have a look at the stats you'll see that for males, the 15-19 year age group had the second lowest age-specific rate (third lowest rate for females in that age group).

//then wouldn't it be a horrible thing to empower that resolution with a painless way to die.//

No, it would be the decent and compassionate thing to do. Certainly a damn sight more compassionate than condemning than to hang by the neck until dead, which is the most common method of suicide by a considerable margin.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2013~Main%20Features~Method%20of%20Suicide~10011

And it's a grisly business: in countries where they still execute people by hanging, or in days gone past, a hangman does/did the deed. It's a tricky business, hanging somebody properly: the intended effect is to snap the neck and sever the spinal column, thus producing a relatively painless death. Too much rope, and they'll fall too far and stop with too much force... and the head pops off. But it's even worse if you don't use enough rope: the drop is too short, there isn't enough force to snap the neck, and they choke to death, horribly, slowly and painfully. Not a nice way to go.

Unfortunately, the way that most suicides end up going: they're not hangmen, and even if they did know how to calculate rope lengths and tie a proper noose, they don't have the height of proper gallows to allow for sufficient drop. So they choke to death hanging from some ceiling fixture, and leave their corpse for their loved ones to find and clean up.

And you think that's worse than painless death under proper medical supervision? God save us from Christian morality.

Dear Banjo,

«In my experience, there are some “pains” that are so excruciating that they are unbearable»

They are unbearable because one failed to prepare for them in advance.
The preparation involves disassociating oneself from one's body: first mentally, then emotionally and finally physically. Once these are exercised, your body may pain, but you are not in pain.

Ultimately, pain is only a sensation which occurs when electro-chemical current runs through certain nerves. So long as you hope to derive pleasure from bodily sensations, you will also experience pain and frustration when your bodily sensations fail to match your expectations.

Once prepared, neither drugs nor suicide will be necessary. Yogis are known to be able to withstand situations with a smile that others
consider unbearable and beyond.

«You are disturbed at the idea of the state eliminating atrocious killers “against their will”, but you say nothing about the innocent victims of child murder...»

Yes, for three reasons:
1. If the state is democratic, then it does so in my name - and I would not kill anyone for any reason (I might feel like it, but I won't act on it). In contrast, I have never empowered the child-murderer to do so in my name, so I bear no responsibility for their bad actions.
2. Since when do states know what's right and what's wrong (and what's wronger and wrongest)? Indeed one might have killed someone, but who is to measure atrociousness? Wasn't Robin Hood a serial murderer?
3. Innocent people might also be convicted, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anyway, my original point was that I am disturbed EVEN MORE when government forces people to remain alive against their will.

<<I couldn’t agree with you more as regards the privacy of our relationship with medical staff and the non-interference of government at all levels.>>

Yes and that's why, the Victorian Government shouldn't be bringing in legislation regarding Euthanasia.

<<However, on the very delicate question of who decides whether we should live or die, I consider that that is a personal decision which we should make ourselves, if we are able to do so. If not, it should be the person whom we designate to take such a decision for us (spouse, etc.)>>

Then let your spouse undertake that if you have one and if they agree.

<< In my view, it (euthanasia) is not something the medical profession, religion or the state should decide, as at present.

This is why, legislation shouldn't be put before parliament. This is why doctors shouldn't be involved in Euthanasia. Doctors can be put in a position having to face State imposed Coroners enquiries and legal action.

<<On this subject, I have noticed that some specialists recommend that patients establish a written declaration, in advance, of their wishes in the case of emergency, regarding life-sustaining treatment.>>

Life sustaining treatment should always be something to try and reach. If obtained, this enables a doctor-patient relationship to occur, so patient advice can be provided. To simply turn people off is irresponsible, for reasons, I've said before. Finally, I fully support the comments from former Prime Minister Paul Keating who says:

"What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead. In both practical and moral terms, it is misleading to think allowing people to terminate their life is without consequence for the entire society. This claim exposes the bald utopianism of the project - the advocates support a bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor".

Simply, any aims or claims protection will occur every time with Euthanasia are not realistic.