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 > We should respect the dying wishes of the terminally ill > Comments

We should respect the dying wishes of the terminally ill : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 14/2/2007

We should have the freedom to decide about euthanasia, according to our needs and values.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
So what was the article really about, euthanasia or abortion? Looks a bit like bait and switch to me.

However I will pretend that it was about euthanasia and agree that it is time that public policy on euthanasia reflected public opinion.

As for abortion, well that is another, different debate.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 8:59:39 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
The author speaks about respecting the wishes of the dying. Its funny how selective she is as to who we should respect and who we should not.Look at her respect for the unborn and then you might question her credentials in challenging the hypocrisy of others. There are also those in opposition who oppose euthenasia for a number of reasons. It does make sense though that those who are in favour of killing the unborn would be a lot quicker to favour assisting in the killing of others. The compassion arguement can be strong on both sides despite those in favour of euthenasia often claiming the high moral ground. Its strange how quickly a person can become compassionate when their is a will involved or money to be made!
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:16:51 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 exactly is euthanasia? Is it assisting someone who wants to die or is it turning off life support and stopping the administration of drugs that prolong life?

From a subjective viewpoint, my father had a stroke at 37 and was in a coma. His life support was switched off because he was like a vegetable. This allowed nature to take its course.

I don't have a problem with this type of action but I am uneasy when people expect someone else to assist them to die. It puts the living in a very precarious position in regards to the law and the threat of litigation not to mention the mental anguish that they may feel if they change their mind about it later.

The topic is very emotional and personal and there is no simple right or wrong answer. I don't know how doctors see it, I guess their own views, morals and ethics would play a large part in any decision. I don't think that it is as simple as the author proposes that we honour the wishes of the dying. It is a lot more complex than that.
Posted by Lizzie4, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:43:52 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
How can anyone else deliberate on what I do with my life ? There are medical safeguards against suicide for no apparent reason, but if I want to end my life because of physical or aged incapacity, how dare anyone say I can't. It's an infringement of personal choice. No one complains when animals are euthanased, because their quality of life is compromised. It all leads me to believe that there might be some religious belief that is colouring the attitude of opponents of assisted death

Comparison with abortion is hardly the same argument. If my mother had wanted to abort me before birth for any reason at all, then it would have been her decision because I would have been entirely dependent on her and would have had no mental conception of life. Post natal, homicide is an entirely different matter.
Posted by snake, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:00:39 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
...good one Snake,
I agree the matter is very complex and each is an individual case, and to compare abortion with euthanasia appears to me to be unhelpful. perhaps, like with organ donation, individuals should be encouraged to express their views or choice (formally) before they get so sick as to become depressed or dependent on others when the matter will be taken out of their hands.
Posted by tillietee, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:16:26 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
Couldn't agree with you more Snake. I've seen people die slowly in palliative care and can't say I approve of the process one little bit. Whilst it's true that some people die in what appears to be a pain free situation, I'm not sure if anybody can be confident that it is indeed a pain free situation. Drugs dull the senses and addle the brain, but who's to really know just how much pain the person is actually in?
Now, thanks largely to idiots like Kevin Andrews and other religious cohorts running our current right wing Government, the debate concerning assisted suicide has been effectively stymied to the point whereby those who are terminally ill or debilitated by old age and illness are having to resort to taking their own lives, sometimes in the most horrible of ways.
It's all well and good for religious nutters to howl down the democratic processes of the euthanasia debate, but I wonder, what part of... "Judge not, lest thou be judged" don't they understand? They can't even follow what's preached from the bible and yet they hold sway over our entire population. A ridiculous situation indeed.
Posted by Aime, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:48:57 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
I have never been able to understand by those so against Euthanasia are so rabid about forcing their beliefs on those who want the freedom of choosing if it ever becomes necessary. Are they afraid that they may falter and may choose Euthanasia themselves if it was legal if they ever had to face a long prolonged death? It is unbelievable that there are adults who think they have an obligation to prevent other adults from 'committing a sin'. As a nurse with 30years experience I can tell you that pain is not the only consideration. What if a cancer obstructs your airway and you slowly suffocate to death? You have chosen the legal option and refuse treatment, including surgery to make a hole in your throat. One man I looked after took 2 days to die, eventually the massive doses of Morphine, not for pain, but to dull his breathing urge had the desired 'side-effect' and he died. For all you deeply religious people, Jesus Christ took 9 hours to die on the cross from the moment he was nailed on and the death of the Son of God was enough to atone for the sins of all humankind. What sins do ordinary humans have to atone for that they have to outdo Jesus Christ? With our marvelous medical knowledge we can prolong life and improve quality of life, but a side effect is that our deaths can be very long drawn out. In the Netherlands it has been proven that it is a very small number of people who die through Euthanasia. Even those who have expressed a wish do not necessarily end up dying this way. It sometimes can just be the comfort of being 'in charge' of the self that is enough and the dying person can finish all the living left instead of worrying, fearing and stressing over the death itself.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 2:16:06 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
We treat our pets better than we treat our aged parents. When your elderly cat has a stroke that leaves it unable it walk you put it down. When your widowed mother breaks her hip and is no longer able to get outside for a fag or have a white wine and unable to see what's on TV you insert feeding tubes into her stomach because the children and the hospital are more afraid of dying than she is.

Yes, we should respect the wishes of the terminally ill, especially when their stated wishes for euthanasia have been formulated during their professional career working in geriatric health care. [Is geriatric health care an oxymoron?]
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 2:31:57 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
Leslie, If you wish to consult all or some of the published reports listed below, you will find that every inquiry found that it would not be possible to safely legalise euthanasia, 3 of them unanimously, though they all included some who were in favour of euthanasia. None used any argument based on religious belief.
1. Select Committee on Medical Ethics. House of Lords. January, 1994.
2. When Death Is Sought - Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. May, 1994.
3. Of Life and Death. Report of the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Senate of Canada. June 1995.
4. Report on the Need for Legislation on Voluntary Euthanasia. Community Development Committee, Parliament of Tasmania. June 1998.
5. Report of the Inquiry into the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996. Social Development Committee, Parliament of South Australia, October 1999.
brian.
Posted by bjp, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 2:35:01 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
When the abortion debate commenced a long time ago the arguement was about the 14 year old girl who was raped and was to young to have her life 'ruined'. In a couple of decades the debate has shifted to the 80000 abortions in Australia alone each year who kill babies largely due to convenience. I would be a lot more comfortable with the debate if people were honest about it. I think people should be able to refuse medication or choose their own death if they want to. When we start talking about assisting this process all the alarm bells ring again. The pro euthenasia always pretend that they are the compassionate ones not wanting to see people in agony. The truth is that their are compassionate and uncompassionate peoole on both sides of the debate. I gather Mark LAtham was pr euthenasia (apologies if wrong). Does that make him less compassionate than Mr Rudd who I assume is against it?
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 4:01:24 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
I really do not care what reports say, I am personally confronted by this issue. Not a family member , not an aging parent, not a friend, ME at 52 years of age.

I have incurable cancer, I have fought it for many years. There will come a time, sooner rather than later, when I will be faced with the fact that there is nothing more my gifted, skilled, team of medical professionals can do.

When this time comes my quality of life will rapidly decline (not that it is great at the moment but you play the cards you are dealt). I am prepared to die, I have no religious beliefs and expect no afterlife. I am comfortable with this inevitable fact.

So we come to the crunch, I go into palliative care, knowing I am going to die. The wonderful nurses do their best to make my final days a little more comfortable. The level of analgesia needed rises, the effects are less effective. Do I ask the nurse to increase the dose to a level we both know is possibly fatal? I end up a zombie and die.

Or do I have my family and friends around, while I am still coherent, where I can help them. Yes in my death I can help them accept it, lessen their grief and end this life with dignity and a sense of control.

But to achieve this someone must break the law and possibly face prosecution with serious penalties, surely it is not difficult to frame laws to assist me.

Who has the right to deny me this, my choice. To those whose morals and ethics tell them this is wrong, get stuffed. If you want to die a protracted death, alone, in a incoherent morass of drug induced stupor, your choice. Don't insist it should be mine.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 5:01:02 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
You have to love it when people argue that peoples who hold to a different morality that thinks euthenasia is bad are wrong because people should get to decide according to their own values...itself a moral judgement they want to oppose on everyone else.

The incoherence of the ethical relativistic argument is obvious. Those who hold to it are not being rational or honest. (Which is why you will be hard pressed to find an ethics professor defending the view these days as they get massacred in any debate)

Its one thing if you want to argue that we should have the right to euthenasia, but at least do it on more coherent grounds.

It was also interesting to see the author ignore the evidence that legalising euthenasia ends up meaning that involuntary euthenasia is inenvitable, as the netherlands shows quite clearly, and the UK government report concluded. (Funny how people argue against the death penalty based on the chance of executed the innocent...such consistency)
Posted by Grey, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:53:07 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
Grey, Australian philosophers hold views on euthanasia. I do not pretend to be able to argue this topic so I will [very unethically] quote from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide which summarises Peter Singer’s arguments as:

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one's future.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. (For possible similar historical definitions of euthanasia see Karl Binding, Alfred Hoche and Werner Catel.) Given his consequentialist approach, the difference between active and passive euthanasia is not morally significant, for the required act/omission doctrine is untenable; killing and letting die are on a moral par when their consequences are the same. Voluntary euthanasia, undertaken with the consent of the subject, is supported by the autonomy of persons and their freedom to waive their rights, especially against a legal background such as the guidelines developed by the courts in the Netherlands. Non-voluntary euthanasia at the beginning or end of life's journey, when the capacity to reason about what is at stake is undeveloped or lost, is justified when swift and painless killing is the only alternative to suffering for the subject.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:39:08 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
Billie, I think you misunderstand. Ethics professors generally do not hold to ethical relativism. Which is the rhetorical rubbish that Leslie and a few commentators were trying to foist on us, in order to try and make themselves look 'tolerant'. Of course, it really just makes them look irrational or ignorant.
Posted by Grey, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:29:56 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
I have read all the posts and yet no one who is against Euthanasia can actually come up with a coherent argument. Steve Madden was eloquent in stating just why it can be so important for an autonomous adult to remain an active participant in his dying. Where Grey gets information from is interesting. How would you know what happens in the Netherlands? I speak and read Dutch, do you? Have you read the legislation that covers and lays down the guide lines in the Netherlands? Involuntary and non-voluntary Euthanasia is alive and well in Australia, not so in the Netherlands, because it would not be necessary. Data in Australia is very hard to come by, because it is illegal. You could only quote numbers from the Netherlands where data can be kept. When an anonymous survey was done in Australia by Monash University amongst medicos it found that almost the same number of people are 'killed' in the Netherlands as are in Australia, the difference being of course that in the Netherlands it is the open decision of the patient, not the hidden one made by medical staff. I personally have enormous difficulty with others, who may not hold my spiritual values, making the decision that my pain or discomfort has become too much for me to bear and dose me up to my eyeballs with goodness knows what drugs to stop me from groaning, moaning or perhaps screaming. That is what happens in Australia. Unless you have access to all the information in the Netherlands, don't use it as a warning why it wouldn't work. It is so successful that Belgium has now also legislated to allow Euthanasia.
Posted by yvonne, Thursday, 15 February 2007 5:42:19 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
Yvonne

I agree that people who oppose euthanasia often use the tactic of obfuscation to blur the issues.

It is not a debate about the discussion of ethics by professors, or the validity of reports from any source.

I challenge any anti euthanasia proponent to answer the question I posed in my previous post.

Or is "how to respond to the euthanasia debate" pdf the sum total of their intellect.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 15 February 2007 6:19:04 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
Steve, "Who has the right to deny me this, my choice. To those whose morals and ethics tell them this is wrong, get stuffed. If you want to die a protracted death, alone, in a incoherent morass of drug induced stupor, your choice. Don't insist it should be mine. "

Very well said.
We have had this discussion before about euthanasia and I still can't comprehend why Christians would value the suffering of people who want to part with life so much they feel they need to prevent patients from being offered some help to leave life peacefully. It seems awfully cruel and incompassionate.

Yvonne, good posts also- I agree.

Often religious people with a religious upbringing oppose euthanasia.
Why?
Maybe I don't get it because I am an atheist, but if Christians think it’s true that Jesus allowed himself to be captured while God approved of Jesus' killing out of love for humanity, then perhaps God would perhaps also understand the issue of love in relationship to euthanasia.

Would a God understand how someone who suffers excruciating pain and has no hope of healing, lost the lust for life?

Would a God understand how much love the close family members feel for this patient and that love and care is the reason why they would allow their loved one to voluntarily end this suffering just as God wanted to end suffering of people by allowing Jesus to be crucified?

Just a thought for the Christians to think about.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 15 February 2007 7:50:45 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
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 15 February 2007 7:50:45 PM
"Just a thought for the Christians to think about."

Another thought for Christians to think about is that technically Jesus did commit suicide.

If you go down to the railway track and wait for a train which you know is going to kill you - you are committing suicide. If you go to Gethsemane and wait for Roman guards who you know are going to kill you - what's the difference?
Posted by Rob513264, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:43:51 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
Thanks Leslie, I'm glad you are keeping this debate going. Smart people, I suspect, take care of this themselves when the time comes. Stats indicate about 15% of our oldies end up in nursing homes and it's these that tend to get shoved into palliative care as well as the ones transferred from general hospitals into palliative units. Most people apparently die after a very short illness of two or three weeks duration. The lucky just drop dead from an internal malfunction. Politicians are, unfortunately, not the best people to make decisions about death. They are callous fellows that vote amongst each other to send us to war with all that that means in terms of suffering. They lack insight. they are riddled with anxiety (always wanting tougher laws) and inadequate when it comes to ruling for the benefit of mankind (more border controls, detention camps for refuges). Euthanasia makes inadequate pollies more anxious. Euthansia is about loving and caring and being responsible for one's own death. How alien are these concepts to those that rule us? Euthansia happens all the time regardless of what the mule of law says. That many people scream blue murder agaist it is them telling us they are frightened of death and have been unable come to terms with their own mortality. The more we discuss this the better it may be for those that are terrified, that they may come at last to surrender to the inevitable.
Posted by Barfenzie, Monday, 19 February 2007 12:36:28 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 challenge any anti euthanasia proponent to answer the question I posed in my previous post."

I already answered your question. Essentially your relativistic morality is self-refuting nonsense. When you post an argument that has some rational merit, I am sure people will deal with it.
Posted by Grey, Monday, 19 February 2007 1:18:59 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
Grey, why is voluntary euthanasia wrong? Why should it not be legal? That is what those of us who think it should be legal want to hear. Is there any argument that is rational to support not legalising voluntary euthanasia? This is hopefully not a bun fight about my moral values are more important than yours and therefore my moral values should be imposed on you, irrespective of which side of the fence you are on. As I said before, so far, those who are against legalising euthanasia avoid answering the above question and instead do what you do. Throw in some 'relativitic moralising' and unsubstantiated warnings about the Netherlands. The slippery slope is another beauty. The semantics and circular arguments that the anti-euthanasia lobby employ do not come near answering: "why is voluntary euthanasia wrong". Why should we NOT respect the wishes of the terminally ill?
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 19 February 2007 10:39:06 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
Grey: "Essentially your relativistic morality is self-refuting nonsense. When you post an argument that has some rational merit, I am sure people will deal with it. "

Nice to see such compassion emanating from an opponent of euthanasia. Personally, I think Steve Madden's posts on this thread have far more rational merit than those of some miserable old religious nutter who would deny Steve his death with dignity, on the basis that Grey's imaginary friend says that it's not allowed.

Grey should cease his insensitive prattling and grow a heart.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 19 February 2007 10:54:14 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
Grey

Thanks for your enlightenment. What "Born Again" Blog did you plagiarise that from.

To me it has nothing to do with morals. All I am stating is what I wish to do and will do :)

Over 70% of paliative care nurses state they have given drugs knowing they will kill the patient. Should we charge them, jail them, sack them?

At least I have the honesty to state my opinions. While you hide behind psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo to hide your religious dogma.

Maybe a plasma TV is more important, your incoherent ravings on your blog only confirm why you are a sad, deranged person. Incapable of a single original thought.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 6:26:33 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
Ah Steve...
"To me it has nothing to do with morals. All I am stating is what I wish to do and will do :)"
"At least I have the honesty to state my opinions. While you hide behind psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo to hide your religious dogma."

To utter these two sentences is an impressive act. Considering how your "question" that you repeatedly said you wanted answered was "Who has the right to deny me this, my choice. To those whose morals and ethics tell them this is wrong, get stuffed. If you want to die a protracted death, alone, in a incoherent morass of drug induced stupor, your choice. Don't insist it should be mine."

That sounds suspiciously like a moral question. Any talk of rights is inherently about morals (I could ask why you have any 'rights' at all?). That you pretend to be 'honest' whilst contradicting yourself is quite informative. What you really sound like is a 5 year old child who is throwing a tantrum when he is told he isn't allowed to do what he wants to do.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 11:13:36 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
yvonne,
I can understand your desire to make euthanasia 'moral', after you have admitted to unlawfully killing people with little to no remorse for this illegal act.

I may not be able to read dutch, but I certainly have close friends who do. So lets look at how it has gone ....

For instance, in 30 years, Holland has moved through assisted suicide to euthanasia (according to their definition). From euthanasia of the terminally ill, through to chronically ill. From physical illness to mental illness. From mental illness to mental suffering. From voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (or the dutch euphamism of "termination of the patient without explicit request"

Government commisions have found that over a 1/3 of deaths in the Netherlands involved a medical decision at the end of life.. Around 1/6 of all deaths involved physicians hastening death with medical treatment. Official Euthanasia according to the strict Dutch definition was 2% (around 2300 in 1990, of which 400 were for mental illness or discomfort). Thousands (roughly 15%) of these medical decisions were without the request of the patient.

Perhaps you live in a fairyland where the legalisation of euthanasia in the netherlands has lessened it's occurance, but a quick perusal of history shows that legalisation of criminal offenses only increases the occurance of things.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 1:00:00 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
Grey don't stress. While you are fit and healthy no one is going to euthanase you, and when you are terminally ill you might not feel the same way about the sanctity of human life. And if you are euthanased you won't be able to complain and perhaps your family will be relieved not to have to watch your suffering or nurse you for 24 hours a day with no respite.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 5:17:11 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
Grey
If you feel like answering someone's post, please answer the question and do not try to second guess what that person wants. How can you understand what I or anyone else wants?

The question is: Why is it wrong? Why can euthanasia not be legalised? Why should the wishes of the terminally ill not be respected? As for tantrums, in 30years in the health profession I have yet to see a dying person "throw a tantrum like a 5 year old".

If you can't or won't answer a straight question, have you thought of going into politics?

Incidentally, in the Netherlands there is no "right" to euthanasia. No one can go to his doctor and ask to be helped to end his life. Certainly not a mentally ill person or an aged person. Euthanasia is only legal when it has fulfilled very strict guidelines. Otherwise it is a criminal offence.

Something to think about, unlike in Australia where no Doctor has been convicted of killing a patient, in the Netherlands there have been. Interesting isn't it?
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 6:15:38 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
Grey

Come in spinner :)

I assumed your response would be about ethics, as advised by the born again movement. Hence my recent post about original thought.

My use of the words, choice and right were also very intentional. I have never said I have a right to anything, all I have is a choice.

Can you please have the intellectual honesty to say that your religious views make euthanasia abhorent to you? Fair enough in my view.

No you can't, you obfuscate about ethics and morals. My morals are mine, yours are yours, both valid.

Your refusal to give your real reasons for your objection to euthanasia speaks volumes. If you just say my religious views make it clear that it is wrong I can accept that.

But no, you parrot the how to oppose euthanasia from the loopy religious bloggers and organisations. Who advise first and foremost not to mention religion.

I call that intellectual bankruptcy, fair dinkum mate, be honest with us and yourself. :)
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 8:29:46 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
Grey

As we know, it is not against Australian law to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment.

Why are you in favour of having people slowly and painfully die of suffocation (withdrawing oxygen) or starvation and dehydration (withdrawing nutrients and water) in our hospitals?

How cruel!

The alternative is to offer patients a quicker and more humane death.

Like Yvonne, I am also interested in the question: WHY is it wrong?
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 8:57:19 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
Grey... what you don't seem to be registering, is that your argument is being attacked upon grounds of obfuscation - you haven't clearly stated your case, while Steve Madden has.

(Correct me if I'm wrong) but your argument is that most philosophers won't defend euthanasia because you can't have varying morals for an issue such as this. One individual cannot be subject to one moral judgement, while others are free to live (or die) differently.
Your other argument was that there is inconsistency between opposing the death penalty and defending euthanasia.

This wasn't easy to dissect, and I apologise if I misrepresented your argument - as I said, correct it if I am wrong.

The reason why I restate it, is because I believe there is a certain level of obfuscation in your argument - you aren't being direct. If you can restate your case in clearer terms, perhaps it will find purchase.
I can't help but feel you have strong beliefs, but have difficulty justifying them.

In response to the arguments above I say, that Steve Madden's argument really points out the moral aspect pretty well. In my view Freedom of choice should extent to pretty much everywhere it does not harm others, and this is among the most important of all choices - so it should be made by the individual.

This argument holds true for the second argument as well - to have death foisted upon you is quite different to choosing it yourself.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 22 February 2007 1:39:03 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
I dont see why death is such a big issue with the religious anyway since they seem to regard death as little more than shuffling off this troublesome mortal coil to begin a new life in heaven (for themselves) or hell (for the unbelievers) which, tragic as it may be, is nonetheless where 'God' thinks they should be.

Eternity scorched in hellfire seems a bit harsh for the crime of failing-to-exhibit-blind-faith to me but then I am not an all-seeing, all-knowing and all-loving god.
Posted by Rob513264, Friday, 23 February 2007 3:39:12 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
TurnRight... Steve has not stated a case at all. Which is the point. His whole argument is that he wants to be able to do what he wants, and others shouldn't have the right to stop him.

I haven't made a case against Euthanasia, because there is no need. The people wanting to change the law need to make a case for it that is coherent and doesn't simply hinge on ethical relativism, which is all Steve has done.

As I specifically said in response to Billie, Ethics professors reject ethical relativism specifically because it is incoherent and thus an indefensible view. Curiously enough, Billie mentioned Peter Singer, who argues for consistent (although arguable) preference consequentialist views. Singer defends both euthanasia and infanticide with his arguments.

So my comments are merely pointing out that those like steve have not actually made an argument for euthanasia.

I appreciate that you see that Steve is indeed making a moral claim, as he seems to want to pretend his claim is somehow unrelated to morality.

I also appreciate that you have actually started to make some argument, unlike the others here. Note also, that I have quickly mentioned that the articles author ignored clear historical cases and british government reports that cleearly elucidate that legalising euthanasia has significant problems with flow on effects and coercion.

The BBC has a good summary of arguments against Euthanasia, although their first 3 religious ones are not arguments I would support. Many of these arguments directly relate to your argument, as the idea that there is no 'harm' to others is called into question.
Posted by Grey, Friday, 23 February 2007 10:03:26 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
Yvonne, I note you ignore the clear evidence of the Netherlands and yet continue to argue as if whether someone is prosecuted is relevant to the issue or not. You want to talk about not speaking straightly, yet throw red herrings into the discussion.

Billie, why are you so selfish? I am not talking about myself or my own welfare, but the welfare of the many people in society who will be harmed by such legislation.

Steve, I see once again that you are being dishonest. As my previous quotes clearly demonstrated, you want the right to choose. That is clear.

You continue to try and use the incoherent moral relativism. Perhaps when you use something that has rational merit, you will get a better response.

You also trot out the stupid rhetorical trick of implying that it is religion that causes me to comment on your irrationality and stupid ideas. Of course, you have your own faith, everyone does. It is unavoidable. The question is not who has faith, but whose views are correct. Your argument cannot logically be correct because it is contradictory and as you are the one arguing for a change of the current status the discussion is already over, without me needing to make a case.
Posted by Grey, Friday, 23 February 2007 10:16:31 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
Now I think we're getting a little closer to the heart of the matter.

One element I am not clear on, is how restricting access to euthanasia is not similarly classified as moral relativism.

On the surface of the matter, one can observe a rule that applies to all human beings - it is easy to draw a line here, and say there is no moral relativism, as the possibilities are set in stone.

However, this is one perception - another is, that in allowing everyone with a terminal illness the option of avoiding a painful death, you are applying it across the board: theoretically, everybody is at risk of having a terminal condition.

It isn't as black and white as the first perception, I grant you. The prime issue, as I see it, is the fact that it is restricted to the terminally ill.

What of those with suicidal tendencies, for whom medication, treatment and psychological assistance does not work? Are they to be granted the same rights?

My response is thus: theoretically, they are not beyond help and this is a key difference. The mind is different to the body.

There is the argument, that perhaps, new medical technologies will extend life.
That even the most terminally ill are not beyond help - in my view it is a dubious claim, but it is a valid comparison.

The problem is... what of the elderly, even if there is in theory, new ways to prolong life, the quality of this life will not be drastically improved. There isn't even potential.
For the suicidal, there is always the potential.

Ultimately, there is a moral aspect to this argument - you can't simply discount it on the basis of moral relativism, as moral relativism is an escapable part of the decision making process - even in law, nay, especially in law.

When weighed up against the moral imperative of ending suffering without hope of relief, well, I can't really see how the arguments stack up.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 23 February 2007 12:56:03 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
Please when will this outdated, barbaric practice of keeping the elderly who are terminally ill and in horrific pain, alive. Some people like my father who was aged 87 - could no longer swallow therefore was starving, also could not tolerate pain killers (including morphine) - he went on to suffer, an emaciated skeleton of a man - for several weeks before his heart eventually stopped beating - all this having to be watched helplessly by his loving family - the look of sheer terror in his eyes will never be forgotten. My dad had always expressed his desire not to end up in a nursing home and that he should be able to have his life ended for him if he had no control over bodily functions. I feel that I have let him down and relive with horror the last months of his life - this is not as it should be.
Posted by ollie, Monday, 26 February 2007 10:42:10 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
Ollie, thanks for your post.

This is exactly what I meant when I replied to Grey a few posts back:

"Why are you in favour of having people slowly and painfully die of suffocation (withdrawing oxygen) or starvation and dehydration (withdrawing nutrients and water) in our hospitals?
How cruel!
The alternative is to offer patients a quicker and more humane death."

It's barbaric and immoral to force elderly people to suffer like this.

People starve to death right here in Australia because people like Grey and so-called "good Christians" are opposed to euthanasia.

And why are religious people always bragging about how ethical, compassionate and charitable they are? There is NOTHING compassionate about forcing people like Ollie's father to slowly die in pain.
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 26 February 2007 12:04:53 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
Ollie and Celivia,

What you have expressed and what Steve expressed before is what respecting the wishes of the terminally ill is all about. Respecting wishes of autonomous human beings about their own end of life decisions.

Every one of us has to make our peace with how we live and die with ourselves and our beliefs (or not) in a higher power. These decisions are too important to leave to others who may not have our beliefs and our values.

It is also manifestly unjust to burden anyone in the medical profession having to make end of life decisions on behalf of others without knowing what their patient's spiritual needs are.

There is nothing wrong with having a strong Christian faith and knowing that this will carry you through at the end of life, but this is not something that can be forced on anyone. That is what free will is all about. Having read the bible, I cannot find anywhere that you could be 'saved' against your will. Regardless of how much you suffer in this life if you do not repent. No matter how much a caring Christian may desire your salvation and place in heaven.

This is why I asked Grey a few times why it is wrong to respect the wishes of the terminally ill. This is what we have been discussing, not the merits or otherwise of professors of any ilk. Over the years I have yet to hear a valid argument from a Christian's point of view why their interpretation of what God wants should be forced on others who do not hold this view.
Salvation, if you will, has to be the free choice of each individual. Grey's comments are pretty typical. Lots of bluster and lots and lots of sneering, but no substance.

In secular Australia we should not have laws that are only relevant from a theological point of view. Isn't it why we are so concerned about fundamental islam with its sharia law that is imposed on all?
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 26 February 2007 7:51:09 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 think that our society finds it difficult to allow Euthanasia because of concerns that it could be used illegally by some families or others in positions of trust. There must be ways of overcoming these concerns.

For myself, although I do have a religious background, I also believe that God is merciful and would forgive my decision. I would not want to live in an extremely painful or vegetative or undignified state. The undignified state comes very high on my list.

Another problem is that despite the wishes of the person wishing to die, family members often overturn such decisions with unfortunate consequences.

Let's hope that Euthanasia is made legal, than most of these issues can be resolved without leaving families or members of the medical profession.....dare I say...in limbo.
Posted by amber300, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 3:38:33 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
Tillietee - In Queensland any competent adult can express their wishes formally and in the Advance Health Directive (AHD), a legal document that binds doctors on issues such as resuscitation, artificial feeding, hydration, use of antibiotics etc. It also contains a section that appoints a health attorney who would have the power to say yes or no to a treatment - for instance, in the case of a new technique not envisaged at the time of the AHD. If every adult stated their wishes in some such document much unnecessary angst and unwanted treatment could be avoided.

Just to clarify: euthanasia, being illegal, is not included in the AHD.

Through many posts there has been confusion between unlawful killing of the terminally ill person and bringing on an earlier death as a side effect of a treatment to relieve suffering. Our laws recognise what is often called the "doctrine of double effect". That is, that the intention of the treating doctor is to relieve the patient's symptoms (such as pain, fitting, agitation, suffocation), not to actively kill the patient.

Like Yvonne, I have worked in a palliative care unit. Maybe some of the furore against euthanasia would subside if the public were more aware of how terrible the process of dying can be for the patient, despite all that medical science can offer. People live much longer with their diseases than they did 50 years ago, partly due to modern medication, and may live with levels of pain, disability, and increasingly frequent interventions that may eventually render life unbearable.

Palliative Care will continue as a movement and practice regardless of whether euthanasia becomes legal in Australia. One is not a substitute for the other.

I have yet to hear a sound argument against euthanasia. I agree that there would need to be many safeguards, and there would be risks - but that's life, and death.
Posted by peggy, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:14:31 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
Peggy, that was very well said.

I've had a debate with a practising Catholic lawyer, but the debate basically became an issue of semantics, talk of 'Double effect', intention, and why passive euthanasia was OK, but active euthanasia wasn't, but then, what exactly is passive or active euthanasia?

Nicolas Filip-Tontini (a Catholic bio-ethicist) in an article argued that turning off the ventilator on the request of a competent women with end stage motor neurone disease was not active Euthanasia. Semantics like this frustrates me. Obviously he has never personally had to turn off a ventilator.

While we hide behind word games and argue about some definitions, we deny total frank discussion on end of life decisions by those most affected.

For anyone to simply believe that refusal of continuing treatment is enough better think very carefully about possible ramifications later on when starting on that high blood pressure medication or cardiac medication now. As you said, medical science has allowed many of us to have significantly improved length and quality of life. but at the end of the day that can be a horrible double edged sword.
Posted by yvonne, Thursday, 1 March 2007 1:08:10 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
Steve and others, you may know of Phil Nitschke, the Australian Doctor, whose stance on euthanasia has been brave and persistent.
His latest book, ‘The Peaceful Pill’ was pulled of the shelves last week for promoting euthanasia.

This is an example of how Australia is being controlled by government interference.

Below is the website Exit International – I thought you would be interested in it as well if you don't already know about it.

http://www.exitinternational.net/

"Australian Government Bans The Peaceful Pill Handbook

At 2am on Sunday 25 February 2007, the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classifcation overturned their December 2006 ruling and took the unprecedented step of banning The Peaceful Pill Handbook from publication & sale in Australia."
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 11 March 2007 11:51:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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