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 > Still no easy legal way to go > Comments

Still no easy legal way to go : Comments

By Philip Nitschke, published 31/7/2006

Australian politics has a Christian chorus denouncing much of what is condoned within our broader secular community.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
I must confess I'm worried by the overt religiosity displayed in governments at home and abroad.

I cannot think of a single country that has an effective government without the separation of church and state.
Italy comes close, but as governments go, it's not particularly impressive. Corruption is rife, and lets face is, berlusconi was a prime example of why media barons shouldn't be allowed to enter politics.

The neo-conservative movement in the US is showing us what we are in danger of becoming. We have far more to fear from this than any terrorist movement.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 31 July 2006 9:53:36 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 last 4 Corners showed the NSW Liberal Party being overun by Christian fundamentalists. Membership of the party down from 40,000 to 10,000 these fanatics weild enormous power within the NSW Liberal Party, and who knows perhaps in other States as well. Costello belongs to Hillsong it's a frightening thought that so few can control so many, is this democracy?
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 31 July 2006 10:31:24 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
It is quite frightening that the pro-euthanasia lobby can get away with self-definitiions of itself as radical, and 'progressive'. Anyone seriously interested in dying can swallow a bottle of sleeping pills quite easily. The medical profession should not be implicated in killing, and if doctors do assist in the dying process they should be obliged to do so out of pure altruism and with some trepidation - not with professional approval or any overt support. Incidentally, I do not belong to any Christian lobby group.
Posted by veritas, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:32:57 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
Christian's are know for their belief that they should control how other people behave and their right to do so.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:39:38 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
Veritas,

There are a couple of problems with your 'sleeping pill' solution. Firstly, we are talking about someone who is dying, probably in palliative care, without access to a GP who would need to prescribe an overdose amount, let-alone getting to a chemist to have the script perscribed.

The next problem, assuming that the person can access the means to kill themselves, may botch the job which could well result in further pain and care needs while they wait to die.

Christianity has a motif of pain in this life for pleasure in happy-slappy-land after death. They impose this belief on anyone regardless of the pain and lack of dignity that that person may be enduring.

If we own anything for ourselves - it is our own lives and the right to decide what we will do with life.
Posted by Narcissist, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:56:39 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
I admire Dr. Nitschke and firmly believe that people have the moral right to take their own lives when they choose to do so. But I’m not sure that I agree with his theory that fundamental religionists are responsible from keeping euthanasia from us.

Australia is not a particularly religious country and, as Dr. Nitschke tells us, Amanda Lohery writes the ‘fundamentalist, all-denomination Christian lobby” supposedly responsible for blocking euthanasia is ‘small in number’.

It is much more likely that our usual complacency in the face of vociferous minorities is the problem.

Australians have demanded and come to expect more and more intervention from politicians in their lives to the extent that we are now a nanny state. We have, in fact, almost reached a point which comes about periodically in all civilisations – slavery in prosperity. We have demanded that governments do more for us: take responsibility for things we should be doing for ourselves, to the extent that they have for some time quietly been taking on the patronising role of parents, big-brother, whatever, and assuming that they know what is best for us.

We have lost much of the control we should have over our own lives – and now, our own deaths.

When enough of us finally wake up to this and start taking back responsibility for ourselves, we will kick out the Andrews of politics and the others who want to force their own narrow beliefs on the country, and the laws we want will be enacted.

Meanwhile, to hell with politicians. There are many ways of doing the deed if we really have to, and they do not involve travelling to Switzerland. And, there are many more ordinary people in Australia than there are politicians, police etc put together to preventing us from doing so
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 31 July 2006 12:00:17 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
Religion, that's when you surrender all responsibility for your own life and decisions but assume the responsibilty for everyone elses.

As I recall, Jesus Himself didn't suffer the full torture of crucifixion because (as the story goes), his legs were broken to speed up asphyxiation and he was speared in the side.

Under the circumstances, was this an act of mercy and compassion?

If that wasn't euthanasia, I don't know what is.
Posted by rache, Monday, 31 July 2006 12:12:26 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
Australians are a resourceful lot and thanks to Doctors with the courage and humanitarian conviction of Phillip Nitschke,we are exposing more of the fanatical pro-life ratbags.
Once one has rejected pie in the sky and come to terms with one's mortality,understanding the act of dying becomes much more a part of living.
Good onya Doctor Phillip Nitschke
Posted by maracas, Monday, 31 July 2006 12:19:17 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
Rache,
perhaps you should grab a copy of the Bible and read the part that concerns the death of Jesus on the cross again. It was the two criminals on crosses each side of him who had their legs broken to hasten their deaths. Jesus appeared to already be dead, so one of the Roman soldiers thrust his spear into his side to make sure their deed was done.
On a personal level, I don't believe politics and religion are a good mix and don't hold any hope that this union between State and Church will come to an end in the short term. Australian voters are both lazy and gullible. Many don't take any notice of politics until it comes time to vote, then they continue to vote for the same old faces with their same tired old ideas because they're too lazy to think outside the square. Over the last several years, political figures with a religious bent have been slowly making themselves dangerously prominent and religious ferver is slowly enslaving the Australian voting landscape. We don't need the likes of Kevin Andrews or the Australian First party forcing their dogma down our throats, but sadly I feel nothing will change at the next election. Good on Dr. Nitschke for attempting to remove the blindfolds from people's eyes, but I fear the voting public still has a long way to go.
Posted by Wildcat, Monday, 31 July 2006 12:51:28 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
When Drion proposed his ficticious pill 10 years ago it was warmly welcomed by the elderly community.

It was the middle generations to whom death is a more remote concept that were dead against it.

We all die, we can make dieing a brief humane process or we can all suffer.

I think the "right to die" is a big misnomer, we all die and so have a right to it.

It should be "duty to live". The real question is do we have a duty to live and if so for how long.
Posted by gusi, Monday, 31 July 2006 3:35:18 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
Gusi,

I think it is more about the ability to die with dignity, not rights or duties.

I am dieing of incurable cancer, not speculation an inescapeable fact. I will die within a few years most likely before I turn 55, when I decide that my life is no longer worth living I hope someone will help me go.

I do not need Kevin Andrews or his fellow travellers (most of the cabinet) telling me how to end my wonderful life.
Posted by Steve Madden, Monday, 31 July 2006 4:13:58 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
Not everyone can cope with the death of loved ones. For some it makes them feel so nervous that they prefer to eschew its reality and punish themselves by denying their own loss.

Grieving is necessary but disliked by this age. Too rarely does one see a wailing woman at a funeral. All is nicely clinicalised.

Until, that is, one realises that life is more than a mere duty, a mere preface before an anticipated expiry date. We are the light of the world. Do not be afraid of the future. This is a cultural apostasy, that comes from our media's fixation with present-centred things, such as luck and money.

Fix your gaze instead upon the eternal life which Jesus promises to us. Only then can you be freed to remain with those you love in their difficulty. Become a Catholic, and partake of the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist.

Only then can you fully rest in God, knowing that you belong here and now, and look to participate in his promise to us. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, and at the end of time he will return to take us all with him, raising up our bodies in perfect form, to be reunited with our souls.

The human body is not divided between soul and matter. Our souls inhabit this very flesh we breathe from, and therefore we must treat our bodies as we would a sacred temple of God.
Posted by Renee, Monday, 31 July 2006 4:19:15 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
It will be interesting for those who supported Dr Nitschke in the NT to watch the events unfolding in the US after Hurricane Katrina:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5191772.stm

A Doctor Anna Pou MD & 2 Nurses were charged with killing a number of patients that were unable to survive the aftermath of Katrina:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/21/acd.01.html

Dr Anna Pou MD is (was?) a lecturer at this school:
http://www.medschool.lsuhsc.edu/faculty_affairs/new_faculty.asp

Her case has raised a high degree of interest, especially amongst medical professionals:

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/07/dr-anna-pou-hurricane-katrina-and.html

I apologise, for I do not remember the Nurse's names.

It is an extremely interesting case, as it involves a no win choice, to do nothing and allow people to suffer unbearably throughout the extended aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or to act to prevent this suffering by assisting people to die?

Either or both of these decisions would inevitably cause harm to the persons in her care, the question to be answered is where precisely, in the absence of the high-tech wizadry which enables effective palliative care, does relatively painless death become ethically or morally preferable to continued suffering? ODes painless death ever become ethically or morally preferable? Whose choice is it to make, the State's, the Doctor's or the Individual's?

I know the answer begins with 'first do no harm', but that does not solve the conundrum, it simply raises more questions, if one must choose between two harms, which is the lesser of the two evils?

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Monday, 31 July 2006 4:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve I fully agree with you. We all die and should be able to do so with dignity.

The shift from "right to die" to "duty to live" merely shows the folly of those who believe that we should extend life for as long as possible. If we have a duty to live then shouldn't the government extend medicare to 100% of wages and squeeze every last minute of life out of every one? Surely not.

At some point we stop living and start dieing, when exactly that point is reached could be the source for plenty of debate, but when we are in the dieing phase we should be able to depart humanely and with dignity.

I respect that many people would choose to live as long as possible.

One of life's ironies seems to be that we have the ability to create and end life but lack the wisdom of when to use it.
Posted by gusi, Monday, 31 July 2006 5:30:48 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
Yes, those terrible Christians and their respect for the sanctity of life. When will they ever learn?
Posted by MaNiK_JoSiAh, Monday, 31 July 2006 5:36:33 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
Rant dressed up as argument - doesn't inspire confidence.

What stops me from dismissing Nietzsche as a godless-botherer? Why is it that extreme secularists are allowed to be politically organised by not Christians?

Nietzsche's pretend humanism needs an anti-Christian flavour,"beware theocracy, theocracy!!" to hook the gullible. Playing to people's silly prejudices is the mark of desperation.

I'm happy the true humanism represented by Christian principles is confounding Nietzsche and his attempts at instituting a death embracing madness.

www.firstthings.com
Report from the Netherlands: “Doctors can help patients who ask for help to die even though they may not be ill but are ‘suffering through living,’ concludes a three-year inquiry commissioned by the Royal Dutch Medical Association. The report argues that no reason can be given to exclude situations of such suffering from a doctor’s area of competence.... The new report does not rule on how doctors should respond if a patient without a classifiable condition should approach them for help but says that doctors believe that some cases of ‘suffering through living’ could be judged ‘unbearable and hopeless’ and therefore fall within the boundaries of the existing euthanasia law.” Waugh expected socialist Britain to be in the vanguard of the death industry. He wrote, “Foreigners came in such numbers to take advantage of the service that immigration authorities now turned back the bearers of single tickets.”
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 31 July 2006 6:40:03 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
As it turns out, the lead has been taken by what Mark Steyn calls Eurotopia, the death-‘n’-sex boutique states of Holland and Switzerland. The London Daily Telegraph reports that “the Swiss are planning to crack down on ‘suicide tourists,’ including hundreds of Britons, who want to take their lives at a Zurich euthanasia clinic.” The report says, “Swiss officials are alarmed that most foreign patients spend only twenty-four hours in the country, meaning that there is little time for their cases to be checked fully.” Complains Zurich’s chief prosecutor, “We know nothing about them and we can’t say if it was a long-term desire to end their lives.” New rules will have staff “specially trained in their trade” and certified as “suicide assistants.” Deborah Annets, chief executive of Britain’s Voluntary Euthanasia Society, agrees that it is imperative that suicide “should be properly regulated.” After all, we’re dealing with civilized societies here, and it seems the decent thing to get to know something about the people you are going to kill. “Objects in the mirror. . . .”
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 31 July 2006 6:41:04 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
My mother recently died in a degree of misery at the age of 96. She asked to go and was sick of pain and distress. She only got her wish when she finally refused food. Her view was well known to the Doctor and she was put on "palliative care". This is beloved of right to life and other conservative Christians but in fact means continuous doses of morphine to keep her unconscious until she died. Occasionally she would wake up in pain and they would increase the dose.

This was all total nonsense. At 96 she obviously had reached her end and she was made to suffer right to the last. She would have prefered a simple end to it all. My pet dog will be allowed a better finish.

I do not wish ill on anyone but if any of these right to lifers suffer unnecessarily at their end it will be poetic justice.

And my morther was not even a Christian, she was Jewish.
Posted by logic, Monday, 31 July 2006 8:15:50 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
The real question for myself is this;should the departure from this life be one of a drug induced stupor,or will I have the courage to face the pain and reality that has transported me to this place in time?Out with a whimper,not a bang?Is this the way the world ends?Yes T.S Elliot

There are many ways of ending it all,from hanging ,jumping off cliffs or car crashes.Why do we need legalised forms of drug exits,when there are other forms of death,that will take real courage for the individual to exit in a clarity of mind that honours the life that they fought so hard for?

For the Japanese of the past,honour was everything and Seppuku would have taken courage way beyond any notion of our western weakness.

Do soft option exists respect the worth of an individuals life?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 31 July 2006 8:44:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, for an act to be courageuous, there has to be a good reason to permform it. To undergo pointless pain is not an act of courage, but of stupidity. You might as well challenge someone to lie down on a busy road and wait for a car to run over them. It would be absurd for someone to ask if you had the courage to do that.

For the same reason, it is absurd to suppose that it is couragous to reject palliative care and die in unnecessary agony. And it is absurd to suppose that a person for whom no drugs can any longer ease their pain would be courageous in refusing euthanasia.

And on a second argument, however sacred one might think a normal human life is, there is nothing sanctified about a person in prolonged final agony. In such circumstances,even Catholic theologians permit giving enough drugs to ease the pain, in the knowledge that doing so will also kill the patient.
Posted by ozbib, Monday, 31 July 2006 10:47:00 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
There was a West Australian court case a while ago where a doctor and relatives of a dead woman were charged with being unlawfully involved in her death. I don't recall the details or what the actual charge was. The woman was in a situation of pain and ill-health and she wanted to die.

From what I saw in the media, it seemed to me that there was no doubt of the defendants' involvement, but the jury quickly came to a 'not guilty' verdict.

This is the way I see it. A jury of twelve, picked at random, would likely include nine people who wanted voluntary euthanasia to be lawful and felt cheated by dishonest politicians who would not pass such a law. So why would they find someone guilty of allegedly doing something which they did not think should be unlawful anyway? Probably many people thought that's what happened on this occasion.

If I was on such a jury, no way would I support a guilty verdict and I would do my utmost to persuade the others jury members to acquit. After a few fiascos of this nature, maybe the politicians would get the message.
Posted by Rex, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 12:19:32 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
Arjay - have I misunderstood your point? You seem to be suggesting that medically supported suicide for the terminally ill should not be available in part because there are other ways to go

"There are many ways of ending it all,from hanging ,jumping off cliffs or car crashes.Why do we need legalised forms of drug exits,when there are other forms of death,that will take real courage for the individual to exit in a clarity of mind that honours the life that they fought so hard for?"

Putting aside the fundamental issue of the rights and wrongs of suicide for the moment
- hanging, jumping off cliffs and car crashes all leave a mess for outsiders to clean up (along with pretty much any other self performed suicide). The trauma for the unsuspecting person who finds the body, the danger for the people who will need to retrieve the body, the dangers to road users as ambulances race to the scene etc.
- The kinds of suicide methods you talk about are not foolproof, people can be left trapped severly injured but not dead by any of the means you suggested. Car crashes can also harm others very easily.
- I would suspect that for the majority of the terminally ill who have reached the point where medical suicide is a prefered option access to hanging, jumping off cliffs and car crashes is getting fairly limited.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 7:58:29 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
To God-botherers like Martin
Here is a question for you. When do individuals have the right to control their own lives? The christian community did NOT create us. It did NOT provide our living for us or provide us with a partner. If it did NOT any of these what gives it the right to stop us from being allowed to CHOOSE our time to die?

That's right choose. Not forced to do something by fundamentalist christian legislation. When will you get it through your heads? There is a fundamental difference between sdomeone being given a choice & someone forced to do something.

Then people like Martin have the nerve to compare other people's choice with their mandated choice & say "hey they are just two options." No they definately are NOT martin. One is tyranny one is individual liberty. Guess which is which.
Posted by Bosk, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 9:29:32 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
The main issue as I see it is that assisting suicide is a crime while suicide, attempted or sucessful is not.

If I am in palliative care and can adjust the morphine pump myself to a level where the drugs will kill me that is legal, if a nurse or family member does it they commit a crime.

So I must die alone, without holding the hand of people I love, to stop them from breaking the law. This is cruel and unjust, but so much that the Lyons Forum does is cruel and unjust - they are just cowards hiding behind their god.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 10:54:53 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
What ever happened to allow freedom of choice for the individual to do with their life as they see fit?.

Those with religious convictions can offer their suffering up in anticipation of the goodies which may come to them in the next life, regardless of the road they travel to get there. Their Choice!

I am basically a coward, I can see no good purpose being served by living a life of intolerable pain ongoing. I have participated in the process myself personally and have watched others do so. I don't want to suffer without purpose, without the light at the end of the tunnel which will return me to a tolerable sense of wellbeing. My Choice!

Doctor Philip Nitscke and the 40% of doctors who demonstrate practical compassion in every sense of the word are supporting 73% of Australians who believe that the manner in which a person dies is of equal validity to that of a dog.

Mary Walsh
Posted by yourchoiceindying.com, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:31:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS I forget to address Arjay entry of the 31/7/06. I have decided that the Japanese have taught us that to suffer very badly over a short period of time in order to achieve long term gain does have its advantages.

But as I said, being a coward, I would have rathered the opportunity of a quick and painless alternative. Modern medicine gives us options but is unavailable.

Modern technology has also denied us what nature intended in the first place - to die of natural causes as the body breaks down from the inside out!

"Give them tea and sympathy but nothing else"! Too much pain relief may kill us! Can't have people dying out of compassion can we? It is illegal. But does being illegal make it then alright?

Not everyone believes in a religious concept of what dying is about, and for those who don't hold a belief in an afterlife should not be forced to comply with a system that assumes we do!

Mary Walsh
Posted by yourchoiceindying.com, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the death of Pope John Paul II, we have seen a new pope which has given the world nothing but hatred.

Cardinal George Pell now head of the Inquisition, runs around the world now demonising Muslims and pagans.

Problem with religion is that it destroys spirituality.
Posted by Spider, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 1:19:38 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
Wow Phillip. I wondered how long it would be before you reared your dishonest head again after you lied to the nation about Nancy Crick's condition.

Why should anyone trust or listen to anything you say?

Euthenasia is a bad idea simply because, as the UK governmental report said, there is no way to ensure that it is free from duress.

Your lies with Nancy showed just how much you are willing to twist the truth to push your agenda. How many patients will you lie to so that you can kill them?

Go away, and stop complaining when members of the Australian democracy exert their democratic rights.
Posted by Alan Grey, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 1:50:25 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
Dont talk about dishonesty Alan Grey when that garbage you have just posted is an absolute distortion of fact in the case of Nancy Crick.
You know full well that Nancy Crick made a choice based on her own and others diagnosis. Phillip Nitschke, acting lawfully assisted her in achieving her rights to die at a time ,place and means of her own choosing.Crawl back under your rock.
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 2:00:40 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
And what in my post said anything different Maracas? Perhaps you are reading what you want to, rather than what was written.

Nitschke is a liar and can't be trusted. It is only a matter of time before he moves from simply lying to the public to lying to patients.

I have known enough people who have already been involuntarily euthenised or been pressured towards euthenasia in this country. Nitschke is just the poster child for this sort of attitude. Willing to lie for his cause...it is more about the cause than his patients.

And don't mistake being legal for not being prosecuted...there is a difference.
Posted by Alan Grey, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 4:10:55 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
Yes Alan, I agree with your last comment. Anyone who has spent any time observing the legal system would tell you that it is not a moral arbiter in matters of life and death. Whilst the defendent's character is considered, no judge acts alone, but seeks to be guided by the social context of the times.
It is just like the modern phenomenon in which a policeman loses confidence in enforcing the law when he perceives that society will not support him, such as when sections of our social fabric is broken. Those who enact/enforce the law require its precepts to be upheld by upstanding citizens, churches and/or social interest groups. Incidence of police impotence and rioting, such as in East Timor, is evidence of this key relationship.
Furthermore, the relationship between doctor and patient is severly compromised when the doctor has legislated power to induce the patient's death. Marginal indigenous communities, who witness to their relatives 'going to hospital' and dying there, already distrust Western Medicine. This fact was crucial to the Andrews Bill successfully overturning the brief window of Euthanasia in the Northern Territory of Australia.
The last message a sick person needs is that their life is of no value. Those with no faith in God could already tell you that.
Posted by Renee, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 7:13:55 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
Alan Grey wrote: "I have known enough people who have already been involuntarily euthenised or been pressured towards euthenasia in this country." Alan, if you have any evidence to back your assertion, I hope you have provided this to the police, who are obliged to investigate.

We are talking about something quite different: voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Arjay and others have questioned why anone would require assistance. The reality for most terminally ill people is that the means of exiting cleanly, reliably, and comfortably do require help, if only in the form of accurate information. There are few things sadder than a botched suicide attempt from someone who has made a sensible and rational choice to end their own life. For many terminally ill people I have known, just the knowledge that they can choose to end it if the going gets too tough has given them the courage to face the dying process without the terror of what they might have to otherwise go through. This is no small thing. Palliative care can do much, but you can't convince everyone that it will relieve all unbearable suffering.

Like it or not, our society is changing, and one of the changes is that more and more people are refusing to have dictated to them what they may or may not do with their own bodies. There are undoubtedly challenges with such a change: how to protect the vulnerable, the mentally ill, and those whose decision to not continue living is based on reversible neglect. But it is wrong to assume that anyone who is seeking voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide belongs to those groups. Or that everyone who wants the choice will want to exercise the euthanasia option.
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 8:45:02 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
Bosk, settle down turbo.

You have a habit of raising questions that are at the very heart of your potential enlightenment, but you continue to just miss the point. I wonder if you have a vague sense of it.

The question about who created us is a crucial one.

The human situation: we did not choose to be born, we did not choose that there should be a universe, we did not choose our parents, we did not choose the society we were born in, we are not able to choose to not be subject to the moral law, or whether we would or would not accept timeless principles. I'll bet you'll find oneday that even your partner wasn't wholly of your own choosing. You really want to dismiss all Greek, Jewish and Christian thought on this? It just seems to me like sawing off a branch one is sitting on for the sake of 'individual freedom from the tree'.

We have free will indeed, but the best use of it is accepting our freedom in God who made us. Who loves us, who loves YOU Bosk and who has things to do with our life that we know nothing of.

We can't say how our life is meant to be a blessing to others, how our sufferings may redeem even complete strangers. Pope John Paul II witnessed to that. And the Church's role is to remind us of these transcendent values. Society is culture, and all cultures have a religious base. That can't be avoided.

Bosk I'd much rather be called names than be proved wrong.

You wouldn't need to resort to that if you were more aware of your own religious beliefs. Starting assumptions that must simply be taken on faith.

Your name calling is your shadow giving a hint of all those wonderful secrets hidden in your religion that you've disowned - maybe because giving them the light of day might require some painful re evaluations.

God bless.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:01:51 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
I mourn for those human beings who have sufferred involuntary death as a result of the politics of the hypocritical world leaders who as church going ,devout christians 'regret' the loss of innocent lives whilst they continue to supply technically sophisticated weapons of mass destruction that are slaughtering the innocents as I write. This 'Christian Chorus'dares to object to assisted, voluntary suicide of terminally ill people who choose to end their lives peacefully at a time and place of their choosing.
There is no end to their hypocricy...I congratulate Philip Nitschke on remembering the anniversary of a brave decision by an Australian Parliament in the Northern Territory that sought to alleviate the unnecessarily prolonged suffering of terminally ill people who had the courage to consciously end their lives with dignity.
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 11:59:46 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
Maracas...
"I congratulate Philip Nitschke on remembering the anniversary of a brave decision by an Australian Parliament in the Northern Territory that sought to alleviate the unnecessarily prolonged suffering of terminally ill people who had the courage to consciously end their lives with dignity."

'terminally ill' ??

Thats just what Nitschke lied about wasn't it? Are you trying to be just like him?
Posted by Alan Grey, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 3:09:01 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
Alan

I am assuming you are talking about Nancy Crick, who did have colon cancer before 3 surgical attempts removed the cancer leaving her with a coloscopy bag. (You crap through your abdomen)

She continued to be in pain due to an undiagnosed "twisted bowel". Of course they had cured her cancer but killed her will to live, she did not want to go on and asks Dr. Nitschke for help.

This has been twisted by you and fellow travellers like David the Doc from Poowoomba.

Nancy Crick did not want to live, she could have killed herself alone and nobody would know. She wanted to have her family around her and kill herself with them.

Why should anyone have the right to stop her.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 3:45:24 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
Did not God make all life sacred on Earth? If so, why do these religious nutters encourage and condone the unnecessary slaughter and torture of all other species, and the continuing desecration of this planet. Oh, I think I get it now? We are the superior species therefore it's okay to exploit and plunder providing there are profits in the equation - right?

And so we have voted the religious right into office to legislate on our behalf where they have declared that we humans are all to die in agony because their God says so! Think carefully folks prior to the next election and insist that candidates disclose their views on euthanasia, prior to your visit to the polling booths.

Your good work will not be in vain, Dr Nitsche!
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 2:39:26 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
Cripey what God or what religion are you thinking of Dickie? None that I know and I call myself a Christian.

You've got nothing to worry about though mate, its incredibly easy to argue against any Christian who thinks exploitation of our environment in profligacy and greed is condoned by Christ.

Just point them in the direction of the New Testament.

Who you really have to worry about are those who don't believe in God, who don't believe morality has an objective reality. Otherwise you're heavily dependent on their good conscience to act in your interest as a political leader.

God has the authority to command, He holds us to account for our actions, He will judge us on the last day and takes our good works (good works in full bloom, seeds that we have planted but can't see their fruitfulness in this life) with us to eternal life. Those of us who have consistently rejected His flavour throughout life will not want to join Him in beautitude at the Resurrection. The Gospels are clear about a lake of fire which we interpret today as shame. So eternal life or an eternal sub human life in shame.

A person who knows they are subject to the above, subject to the authority of the Word of God in the Bible, can be held accountable to these things. They have humbly and publicly proclaimed adherence to the Good News of Jesus Christ - something itself fully public to us in the West after two thousand years and easily used to counter any hypocrisy in the politician or official.

How scary though a politician whose philosophy is moral/cultural/religious relativism? Who believes that right is only a function of how much power a person or group can bring to bear on an issue - not any intrinsic rightness or wrongness?
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 4:34:05 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
Martin

If you are unaware of religious leaders on this planet who are dictating because of their personal beliefs, then your head is truly in the sand.

I have no objection to your declaration that you are a Christian, however, do not force your beliefs down my throat since you are simply consumed with your own salvation.

I too have a God - it's called "Conscience". This is the code I endeavour to live by which includes the following parable (biblical at that!): "Only to do the right, and to love goodness and to walk humbly with my God". My conscience is not bogged down with religious dogma - just an awareness of man's inhumanity to man!

Your lecture failed to touch on the issue here. That is Euthanasia. The mercy I endeavour to show to other infirmed species also extends to those humans who desire to exit this sphere since they can no longer lead a useful life, as a result of a terminal and painful physical condition. Does an extended agonising physical condition assure the patient's salvation, Martin?

I shall wait to see if our "leaders" have the guts and compassion to conduct a referendum on Euthanasia. It is long overdue!
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 11:46:49 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
Its true that bad religious people are worse than bad non-religious people I agree there. The corruption of the best is the worst. Religion is the greatest force for good and for evil we have so we must learn to make the most of it.

This is where the Church comes in, its reflected on the Revelation of God in Jesus for thousands of years, interpreted, philosophized, and added meaning each generation. It’s a shame you reject all this. I can understand the spirit you express and its common in our age, self serving feel good spirituality rather than the faith Christ speaks about. The latter is hard the former suits our rabid individualism – its not a faith that saves though dickie.

As for dogma, trees don't make dogmas, turnips are singularly undogmatic. It is human to make dogmas.
If you believe religious dogma is being shoved down your throat simply in the restatement of orthodox Christian belief what does that make your dogma? Ought your dogma be assumed to be true?

'Dickie's doctrine of the automatic acceptance of the primacy of Dickie's unguided uninformed conscience'. If you want shoved down a throat there it is in spades.

The dogmas I hold have been public for two thousand years - subjected to intellectual scrutiny throughout this time – Jesus and his Church is still here while the persecutors of the Church disappear. Billions of ppl before have believed before and will in the future. Great geniuses, saints and holy men and women have contributed to its formulation and understanding.

I think I'll take this over your dogma Dickie. Do as you will but don't pretend you aren't trying to promulgate the doctrines of dickie's church with its membership of one.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 5:18:32 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
PN knows that euthanasia will have to be legalised if it is to be taken up. He also knows that every large inquiry into the consequences of legalising euthanasia which has published its findings has found that it will never be possible to make any such law safe from abuse. If he doesn't believe that, he has been repeatedly challenged to devise and publish his version of a 'safe' law but, despite promising to do so, he has never done so. Will he now attempt it or at least say why he hasn't kept his promise? bjp
Posted by bjp, Saturday, 26 August 2006 5:48:53 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
Philip Nietszky doesn't have to offer explanations to the legions of morons who cling to so called ethical safeguards against abuse.
Euthanasia is just a word for 'a painless death'
That is all Philip has been promoting.
He is not proposing that anybody should be euthanased by another party. He has always sought to place the knowledge and means in the hands of those who choose to end their own lives at a time and place of their own choosing.
People take their own lives all the time for many and varied reasons,mostly by violent or painful means.
I would have thought that voluntarily suiciding oneself in a painless manner should be embraced by compassionate people.
Philip gets my endorsement for citizen of the year.
Posted by maracas, Saturday, 26 August 2006 6:15:18 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
I get the impression that bjp naively thinks that any current laws/legislation on other issues are safe from abuse. Which ones would they be, bjp?

Many Australians are unconcerned with the risk of abuse - they simply require and opportunity to vote "YES" for euthanasia! The "NO's" can continue down their own path - now that would be democratic!
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 26 August 2006 6:22:15 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
Those who oppose the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia seem to do so on the basis that only God can decide when a life should end. Well, for those who would like relief from their endless, futile and terminal pain, distress and suffering, it could be said [by those who hold a belief in God] that God has already decided that it's time for them to leave this earth.

In fact the only reason that they are still alive is that other human beings are manipulating their bodies by means of drugs and/or machines. Maybe this could be said to be going against the will of God.

This is not the same, of course, as receiving treatment which may cure a person, or at least alleviate their suffering and make their life bearable. In such a case, the treatment is not futile. And, most importantly, such treatment is likely to be welcomed by the sick person.

Would any anti-voluntary euthanasia people care to comment?
Posted by Rex, Sunday, 27 August 2006 11:10:02 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
It seems to be that many human beings have secret feelings of inadequacy,and to compensate for this and to boost their fragile egos and make themselves feel powerful,they seek to impose their political or moral will on others,hypocrits and bullies will always be with us,dont do as I do but do as I say,because my view is right and therefore yours must be wrong
If only polititions would be more like computers,you get out only what you put in,but at great speed,and with no self opinionated claptrap
Posted by duke, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 1:52:10 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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