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 > Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017: sending mixed messages on suicide > Comments

Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017: sending mixed messages on suicide : Comments

By Simon Kennedy, published 19/10/2017

It doesn’t require doctors to check for an undiagnosed mental health issue; only a pre-diagnosed one.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
.

Dear Yuytsu,

.

You wrote :

« The state has no right to prohibit assisted killing, but this doesn't mean that it is not sinful or that one could get away with it in the long run »

I guess that what you really mean, Yuyutsu, is “assisted killing of oneself”. In other words, “assisted suicide”.

If you really mean what you wrote (assisted killing), then the state not only has the right to prohibit it, it has the bounden duty to prohibit it. In other words, if I suggested that I might assist A to kill B, then it would be the duty of the state to forbid me to do so.

Also, as “sin” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as : “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law”, I consider that there is no such thing as “sin” because there is no such thing as “divinity” or “divine law”.

I’m sure you didn’t think I would let you get away with that one, Yuyutsu !
.

You then remarked :

« You said many correct things about democracy, but I think that you missed my point … »

I guessed you were referring to your moral and legal responsibility to the “atrocious killers” and their “innocent victims” - which is why I tried to clarify those responsibilities from the point of view of somebody who did not identify with the majority - which I imagined to be your case.

A democratically-elected government always acts “in the name of the majority”, but its acts engage the whole of the country, including the minority. The only way the minority can prevent this, is to overthrow the government or wait for the next election in the hope that it will become the new majority. Failing that, the only other solution is to cancel citizenship and leave the country.

However, the three “reasons” you indicated in your previous post seemed impertinent to me because they were totally lacking in humanity for the innocent victims, irrespective of any question of responsibility.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 3:07:50 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
//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.//

Correct. But I've never suggested allowing euthanasia for people who's only afflictions are mental illnesses. No doubt if I think about it some more I can think of other categories of patient for whom it would not be appropriate. But one is sufficient to demonstrate that you're just making crap up because you have no sound rebuttals to the arguments I have made, so you're trying to rebut ones I haven't made instead.

Do you even debate, bro?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 4:23:10 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
//Your too young to be losing your memory kid.//

I'm middle-aged and my memory is fine. You're too thick to be gaslighting, snowflake.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 4:32:09 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
Dear Banjo,

«I guess that what you really mean, Yuyutsu, is “assisted killing of oneself”. In other words, “assisted suicide”.»

Yes, sorry for the confusion.

Now considering your reply, if A asks you for assistance in killing B AND B asked A to kill him/herself, then this should be legal - still sinful, but it is not for the state to enforce morality or religion.

«I’m sure you didn’t think I would let you get away with that one, Yuyutsu !»

The Oxford's definition is sloppy. The word 'sin' comes from archery: "to miss the mark". Merriam-Webster offers 4 meanings, including "a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God". See a fuller explanation in http://www.allaboutgod.com/what-is-sin.htm

«which is why I tried to clarify those responsibilities from the point of view of somebody who did not identify with the majority - which I imagined to be your case.»

I don't consider it a good idea to identify with anything, including majority or minority.

The only problem with majorities, is the arbitrary nature of voting among a group of people that you never freely elected to associate yourself with. If you freely join an association whose constitution calls for majority-based voting, then there's nothing wrong with a majority rule. As it currently stands, however, most people never freely agreed to associate themselves with a state, but suppose even if only ONE(1) person did not agree to join, no state has a right to expel them from their land. Realistically, it is very unlikely for too many people to agree to associate themselves with a state, thus states need to be much smaller.

«However, the three “reasons” you indicated in your previous post seemed impertinent to me because they were totally lacking in humanity for the innocent victims»

I have written in my will, that should I be murdered, I forgive the murderer and ask that they not be convicted or jailed on my behalf.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 7:44:30 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
Toni,

[I'm middle-aged and my memory is fine. You're too thick to be gaslighting, snowflake.]

Tell you what. When you act like an adult I'll treat you like one. But if calling you a kid is distracting then I suggest you grow up and give up your childish tendiancies in name calling. As long as you do it, all I can see is a teenager trying to look smart by calling his debate opponents fools in one form or another. It's really a good sence of aging someone, because more mature adults do better then this.

As long as you act like a kid (expecially online), then you are a kid.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 2:41:08 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
.

Dear Yuytsu,

.

You wrote :

« Realistically, it is very unlikely for too many people to agree to associate themselves with a state, thus states need to be much smaller »

Australia is administered at four levels : municipalities, regions, states and nation. It seems to me that this accommodates for the various specificities of the population to be taken into account at the very local level, broadening-out, in three distinct stages - four, if we take into account our international alliances - for greater solidarity on the regional, state, national and international scene.

We vote at all levels, except at the international level where we authorise the representatives we elected to our state and national parliaments to vote on our behalf.

In my view, we must recognize and accept our differences; it is these differences that make our culture so rich and our nation strong.
.

I wrote :

« However, the three “reasons” you indicated in your previous post seemed impertinent to me because they were totally lacking in humanity for the innocent victims »

And you replied :

« I have written in my will, that should I be murdered, I forgive the murderer and ask that they not be convicted or jailed on my behalf »

If, in fact, you were murdered, the police would probably interpret that to mean that you knew someone wanted to kill you and that you knew who it was – someone close to you whom you wanted to protect in order to prevent him or her - perhaps your wife or one of your children - from being prosecuted for murder.

In any event, under Australian law, the Crown Prosecutor has the sole authority to decide if somebody should be tried for murder, strictly on the basis of the evidence – irrespective of what you may have written in your will. Murder is a crime against the state and it is the duty of the state to find the murderer and bring him or her to court.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 3:16:04 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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