“…at least 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program…”

“Killed” is a very strong word for a peaceful, requested death by euthanasia; it’s use a very dishonest ploy to repel people from euthanasia.

“A 1991 study showed that an average of three people a day underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent.”

Another claim to be ignored until the author produces proof of this study.

Dutch parents are able to collude in ‘killing’ children aged under 12. This character uses some very emotive language and ideas to cover up his complete lack of real argument against euthanasia. Nothing new for religious dogmatists.

And, who says, apart from this narrow-minded Presbyterian, that many elderly people in Holland are afraid to seek medical help for fear of being euthanized? Are we supposed to take his word as a ‘good Christian’ who believes in suffering?

Who is this fellow to presume that what might or might not be happening in Holland would happen in Australia, anyway?
It seems that the Presbyterian Church has gone even further backward than it was when I gave it away 50 years ago.

Only a few days ago, a TV programme had on a doctor who openly said that he had been involved in euthanasia; so have many more doctors.

It’s only a matter of time before people will be able to legally request an end to their sufferings; in the meantime, good luck to all those people who now have the means to choose the type of death they want, rather than suffer as the do-gooders and fanatics want them to.

Once again, people who worship a particular god demand the right to impose their morals on everyone. You don't have that right, and I am not aware that that right exists in any Constitution or UN Charter. Your god may say that it is OK to prolong life to the nth degree, regardless of the quality of that life or the wishes of the possessor of that life, but I will not subscribe to, or be bound by, the rules of any such heartless cruel, uncaring religion. It is my decision, and my right,in these circumstances to to determine the nature and timing of my death.
David makes the common mistake that politicians should be subject to the rules of his church. I don't imagine that he would be happy if they were subservient to, or led by, non-chrictian churches that differed in their approach. Similarly, I take great offence that because David believes something, I should be bound by his belief. Such arrogance is appalling in a member of a church that preaches humility. For David to assert that he is not ignorant of the issues of great pain and suffering is clearly delusional, as he appears to wish to inflict it on those who differ in their approach to life and death. I doubt that a non-subscriber to his faith would get much pain relief from a visit from a chaplain.
I sincerely hope, for David and his ilk's sake, that they do not end up suffering a prolonged, agonising death, with their only relief being massive doses of drugs that keep one semi-conscious, or the prattlings of a chaplain. In that case, I would fervently wish for the blessed relief of death.

None of the United Nations human rights instruments contain a “right to die”. They are all about the flourishing and development of each human individual, not the deliberate and orchestrated ending of an individual’s life.

The Bill claims to contain certain safeguards, something emphasised by Ms Hartland in her second reading speech. However, did Justice Menhennit, in his 1969 ruling on abortion, realise that his ruling would lead to one abortion to every three live births in Victoria a few decades later?
I would put it quite differently. Why should the United Nations or the State have the right to deny a terminally ill or worn out elderly person the choice of calling it quits? Living wills should be legal. Now in my late seventies I hope someone will follow my instructions when I have run out of the ability to contribute. I suggest that it is unethical to deny me my last right.
What evidence does the author have that the abortion rate before 1969 was lower? I suggest the rate then was merely unknown. Now at least the woman has adequate care and a much better chance of survival. At a time when it is obvious to even the more dull that we are running out of food and fuel why does the human rate need a birth rate above the replacement rate?

Leaving aside all issues of religious belief for a moment, this article is simply deceitful.

>>A 2005 study showed that at least 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program were suffering from depression. A 1991 study showed that an average of three people a day underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent. Studies in 1991 and 1995 showed that, despite Dutch law requiring physicians to report physician-assisted death, the majority of deaths went unreported.<<

Four "studies". None specifically identified.

>>Holland - a country where many elderly sick people are afraid to seek medical help because they fear being euthanised without their consent<<

No citation at all.

>>Ms Hartland quoted statistics from a Newspoll poll to the effect that 80 per cent of Australians support euthanasia and only 14 per cent oppose euthanasia. But the results of polling is highly dependent upon who is polled, the information provided and the actual wording of the questions. I suggest caution be exercised over the Newspoll poll.<<

Caution, Mr Palmer? If you ask us to exercise caution over this, how do you suggest we approach your other assertions?

Cynically, perhaps?

“Give me that old-time religion!” The author seems to be steeped in the old dour Scottish Presbyterianism which campaigned against the introduction of anaesthetics for use during childbirth. It decreed that minimization of occasions of extreme pain in birthing situations was un-natural.
Such extreme preaching did not stop the advance of the high standard of medicine in that country. Perhaps there might be affinity by the author with the then locals on Scotland’s island of St. Kilda (now abandoned) when they killed the last Great Auk, after it waddled out of the sea, on the basis that it might have been the reincarnation of a witch.

David's last point is "the" point for me. He speaks of Drs maintaining "life" which raises the question of how we define "life". Life which has lost all quality is not "life", for me it is "existing". Medical science has brought us many great outcomes but it can also extend our existence beyond the point where it is really living. Society needs to recognise this fact and not cling to the norms of the past or impose the constraints of religion or any other dogma on intelligent people who spend their lives making choices and who seek to continue that in their final choice. I want only to make the choice about when "life" ends and "existing" begins at which point I prefer to check out thanks all the same.

My mother will be under the surgeon's knife for her heart this afternoon at 1.00 PM.

My sister, my mother and I have always agreed that should her health deteriorate to the point where to prolong her life, my mother would be confined to bed hooked up to life-support, that she has a 'no-resuscitate' order. My mother is 83, she has lived a full active life. If the surgery is successful she will have a few further years of a full active life. She wants and is entitled to nothing less.

My mother is fully mentally competent and it is HER CHOICE to die with dignity. Not the government's, not some religious organisation or any other group who wishes to control my mother's life, her choices and her well-being.

The sooner Australia has a well structured euthanasia policy - such as the one in the Netherlands, the better for all people who are now currently suffering, immobilised and merely surviving instead of LIVING

It is really hard to take seriously anyone who "worships" at all. The capacity to worship a supernatural deity does not confer special insights into morality. People who worship just interpret a set of ridiculous and often contradictory ancient exhortations that belong to an era of great ignorance. We should have moved on since then. Like a lot of non-believers, I can't understand the arrogance of a believer in the supernatural telling me how I should die, based solely on what they think their invisible friend tells them. I know the writer of this piece is well-meaning but you really need to critically examine your belief system at the most fundamental level and question whether the strange, obviously human-invented god you believe in actually exists. And in the meantime, let everyone else decide their own fate.

life is shitt
im depressed
but i see no reason for govt to legalise murder

There seems to be a lot of murder going on allready
considering we dont conduct routeene autopsy for EVERY death ,the causes of death presently are whatever the docter supervising dictates

Death by smoking is a typical case in point

19,000 deaths were 'ATTRIBUTAL' to smoking [that dosnt mean they died from smoking [or the affects from smoking ] but that the docter wrote that as the cause of death

Just as likely they died from poor medicine [or the very 'treatment ' the docter was giving] but we dont check on that [we dont do autopsy to find the REAL cause of death] we just accept the docters word upon the death certificate THEY WRITE OUT.

We live under a presumed christian creed [one supposedly respecting life] and while athiests might revel in saying suffering is a christian belief this simply is only the extreem version of a sect, jesus was clear in revealing that we do unto others will be done to us 7 fold ,that you did to the least you did to god.

We live in the time of lies ,in a time where govt persicutes upon victimless crime ,passing rules allowing it to lie to us ,theft and oppressing its OWN people because of a plant [not a drug,while the truelly evil people get away with legal murder ,where a plant that can cure deppresion as well as cancer is declared war upon ,

While the silent multi-national owned media gives us its yearly promise of a future cure for these problems while it vilifies the only god given cure [gen 1;29 ,i give you every seed bearing plant,they will be yours for food]

revelations 22.2 the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations ,bearing 12 fruits[cannabis has 30,000]

ex 25;40 make them the design ye saw upon the mount[see the early police posters of the plant of life[tree of knowledge of good and evil]

One Under God has done us all a favour. He has confirmed that it is only his/her (allegedly christian) beliefs that count, and the rest of us had just better do as s/he says or else. Get a life mate, or, better yet, allow someone else to end theirs in their own time and manner.

It is really hard to take seriously anyone who does not"worship" at all. To think people could be so arrogant and ignorant towards their Creator. You only have to look at the mess the Western World is in as they have embraced the unscientific idiotic philosophy of secular humanism. They murder the unborn by the truckload and then claim to be moral guardians in regards to Euthenasia. They refuse to smack their kids and ask dumb questions as to why we have so much violence today. They ignore every sensible moral boundary and wonder why our hospitals can't hold all the mentally afflicted. Not being happy enough with not being able to keep together a marriage they want to brainwash our kids with their own god denying and god hating philosophies.

Good point, Lesleyb

>>He speaks of Drs maintaining "life" which raises the question of how we define "life". Life which has lost all quality is not "life", for me it is "existing"... Society needs to recognise this fact and not cling to the norms of the past or impose the constraints of religion or any other dogma on intelligent people who spend their lives making choices<<

My guess is that we would see a fairly precise correlation here between the anti-abortion lobby and the anti-euthanasia brigade.

Both groups share a religious (in the broadest sense) belief that our lives are not in fact our own, but "belong" to the Almighty. Therefore any attempt to thwart God's designs for us - suicide, for example - is deeply sinful.

They also have the most expedient view of what constitutes "life": from zygote to vegetable.

So there are no right answers, folks.

There never are where religion is concerned. Just a truckload more questions.

And hi to you, runner.

>>You only have to look at the mess the Western World is in as they have embraced the unscientific idiotic philosophy of secular humanism.<<

Mate, you and your fellow religionists held the stage for centuries, and what did you give us? The Crusades. The Inquisition. The ducking-stool. Healing-by-incantation...

http://www.maggietron.com/med/religion.php

Not sure that's a record to boast too much about.

Most reasonable people would agree that the right to die is as valid as any other right to choose what we do with our own bodies even if there is no historical precedent as the author claims.

That given, the only issue I can see with euthanasia is how it will be implemented and monitored and the potential negative impact on funding for good quality life-extending palliative care and mental health services. Once those issues are sorted out and laws in place to protect patients then the only issues remaining are philosophical ones. This issue is similar to same sex unions, where one group of people attempt to force their own views on another based on their own version of what is right or wrong. While we are all guilty of that to varying degrees, the concept of 'harm' would have to play a role in decision making where there are opposing moral and ethical considerations.

The author argues that a doctor's role is to preserve and prolong life not to terminate it. Could it be suggested that a doctor's role also encompasses the concept of 'first do no harm'. If forcing a terminal patient to live against their will whose life has lost all 'quality' is preserving life always the ultimate aim even if 'harm' is the result? Doctors already make those choices by upping morphine to control pain knowing that the dose is terminal. Euthanasing a life should of course be voluntary to protect doctor's who might have moral or religius objections.

As another poster said we should think about how 'life' is defined before deciding whether to prolong it. Is life only determined by a beating heart?

One of the biggest problems against Voluntary Euthanasia are the religious people, life is sacred they cry and God must end it at the appropriate time, but are quite happy to send young men and women off to be killed in unjust wars.
I do not believe in Gods,Godesses,Fairies etc, therefore I should have the right to end my untold suffering and indignity when I feel I have had enough of pain, which will never be relieved until "God" decides it is time for me to go, I don't want to wait for an untrue belief system where there is no proof of any such things as Gods, but I do respect your decision to suffer pain and indignity until the imaginary "God" calls it a day for you.
I must have that right to end my suffering the same as you have the right to not end your suffering

Ojnab

Reading Dr Palmer's article I understand why most Presbyterians joined with the Methodists to become the Uniting Church in Australia. Most Australian Presbyterians were brought up to be independent and look after their own - so why would they take kindly to an outside influence telling them how to run their lives.

My mother and my father's brother were dying at the same time. My mother's hospital nurses wouldn't allow talk of dying - but my uncle, still in his own home, briefed me on living wills, refusing forcible feeding on my mothers behalf. Fortunately for mum and me, her desire to die prevailed because the religious hospital ignored the written enduring medical power of attorney invested in the youngest child, who can't put down a sick cat, and listened to the wishes of the oldest child.

I am sure most members of Exit International are over 60 and have lived long enough lives and had the experience of watching their parents become sick, frail and die. They know from their own experience that there is nothing more lonely than being surrounded by other old people in a nursing home watching Channel 9 while you wait for lunch.

Levels of depression amongst the elderly and dying are probably much higher than the levels of depression found in university students.

I have seen other loved ones filled up with morphine in their final days of life and I am sure that a grieving relative could argue the toss making the prescribing doctor very vulnerable to prosecution. I would like to see the Hartland Bill passed to provide boundaries of acceptable behaviour that reflect the community interests.

Pericles

Your select parts of history might ease the conscience of many who reject the Saviour's forgiveness but it makes little sense. Yes the Catholic church has been corrupt and done many horendeous things in the past in the name of God. Unfortunately they clearly ignored Christ and showed they had no real knowledge of Him. What many ignore is that more unborn babies have been murdered than the total number of all others killed in wars throughout history (as a direct result of secular thinking). Added to this the number killed by Marxism (at the heart of secular humanism) far outweigh the horrible crimes committed by Catholics and others calling themselves 'Christians'.

"The capacity to worship a supernatural deity does not confer special insights into morality".

That line should be included in every national anthem and constitution and said aloud as part of the Australian naturalisation ceremony.

Thanks Sancho. I do, of course, completely agree!

So Runner, you wont be attending the Catholic Youth jamboree in Sydney!

Assuming you are a male your prinicples are respected, but when you can give birth to a child, your comments on abortion are meaningless!

Well I am dutch and I must say this article is a bit misleading. You must be terminally ill and of sound mind when requesting euthanasia. It also has to be requested several times.

Mere depression doesn't qualify you for an early exit. Perhaps the 50% of people who died and had depression were depressed because of their terrible suffering and terminal illness.

"9% of intentional deaths were caused by euthenasia". According to the Dutch central bureau of statistics the percentage of euthanasia in total deaths in 2005 was 2.2%. See (In Dutch) http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71439ned&D1=a&D2=a&D3=a&HD=080626-0828&HDR=T&STB=G2,G1

This Lancet survey of European countries based on a smaller sample size had the percentage in 2003 as 2.59. http://image.thelancet.com/extras/03art3298web.pdf You'll note that Holland has correspondingly less cases of "Alleviation of pain and symptoms with possible life-shortening effect"

Framing euthanasia legislation is tricky as you must clearly define consent and quality of life. Unlike say a blood alcohol limit these are not easily measured. Not being a lawyer I won't make any suggestions there.

I have had family members depart both ways. Would you prefer to die at home surrounded by your family or after a few weeks more suffering, strapped to a machine in a ward full with strangers?

Dying is a very personal thing and I am sure that given a choice people will want to do it in different ways. We all do it at some point. Why should atheists have to suffer in the same way Christians do?

If we have no "right to die" we must have a "duty to live". No one is immortal but with medical technology we can extend life well beyond its natural term. However at some point the quality of life becomes minimal.

When our pets are terminally ill and suffer unbearably we do the humane thing and put them to sleep. Ironically if humans are terminally ill and suffer unbearably we submit them to advanced medical technology to draw out their death and extend their suffering.

Here we go again:
I've lost count of the number of times I have posted on the subject since 2005,
I find the objection to legalising suicide in certain instances invariably arises from that element in our society whose religious belief urges them to resist any attempt at rational thought about the rights of the terminally ill to choose their time place and means of dying with dignity.
I have concluded that apart from the biblical texts that are trotted out and the invoking of God's will,the main drive is to preserve fear and ignorance about death.
After all, it is often the fear of dying and the 'wish' for eternal life that helps preserve church heirarchy .

Death is the final part of the journey of life we need to understand this and embrace it. We are still allowed to grieve the loss of loved ones dying prematurely but that does not mean we should stand in their way when they choose to end an existence of pain and suffering.

It is all very simple really. If I find myself in a position of unbearable pain with a terminal illness I certainly, do not want some self-righteous religious fanatic who has sold her/his mind to an un-evidenced belief they will live forever, to make my decisions for me. That is how the vast majority of Australian think and politicians in our secular democracy have only one choice and that is to implement a system where voluntary euthanasia is a choice.

The sanctimonious amongst us do not have to avail themselves of the service but they have absolutely no right to impose their own particular views onto those who think differently.

To do otherwise is known as tyranny, and it is the hallmark of religion.

Jonathon

Hi David Palmer, long time no see since your abortion article :)

Do you think it is more humane to
a) force patients to suffer unbearably against their will with no positive outlook until they die a possibly slow, painful and lonely death, or
b) allow them to choose a soft, quick and peaceful death in the presence of their loved ones?

Two persons I personally know have been approved for euthanasia. One didn't go ahead with it because she kept postponing the date and died the night before she booked her euthanasia.

Last week, a 35-year-old family friend opted for euthanasia after a three-year struggle with cancer. She underwent all kinds of treatment, from chemo to radiation therapy and two operations.
She had a loving husband and a 4-year-old daughter.
Her specialist told her that there was no more treatment available, and that her cancer was terminal, giving her no more than 2 months to live.
She suffered much pain despite high doses of pain relief that made her feel nauseous and dizzy. She was bed ridden and needed fulltime care.
To have her euthanasia application approved her GP and oncologist consulted with her and her husband. She also, on request of her husband, went for a second opinion from another oncologist before the euthanasia was approved.
She, in her own bed surrounded by her husband, daughter and parents, and semi-covered under a pile of soft, cuddly toys as a last gift from her daughter, died very peacefully and without pain.

Do you think that her decision was wrong and she should have been forced to suffer for another two months?

Doctors have two distinct duties to their patients. The first is to relieve suffering and the second is to preserve life.
But what if the doctor is not able to relieve the suffering and/or to preserve life, in case of terminal illness?

http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/ibe/euthanasia_the_netherlands_new_rules.asp Click the link at the bottom for the euthanasia pdf brochure

Dear Fractelle,
I wish your mother all the best, I hope the operation was successful.

I have never understood why so many christians are so terrified of dying.
Why do they grieve? Why do they cry and moan at funerals?
My father's house has many mansions.
So many beliefs of the various christian churches are extremely hard to find in the gospels.
If 'Do unto others..." is the penultimate law, let me die with dignity.
How can we claim any concept of freedom, if we don't own our own bodies?

I hate having to waste my time responding to david palmer
he doesn’t declare his superstitious baggage. I try very hard not to be superstitious at all.

david is one of those creepy christians like kevin andrews that are
presuming to know what is “good” for me . bah & humbug .

when I decide my time to die has come I will tell david I am breaking the 4th commandment ( keep the sabbath ) . I will then expect david’s sky fairy to “put me to death”.
however I do ask for a little mercy : if I am to be stoned , can big stones be used

it is difficult to respond to david’s “ arguments “ except with ridicule and contempt

david s. ( yes , I am ashamed of my “christian” name )

What a pompous, self righteous and ignorant item from Mr Palmer. I assume he knows Mrs Palmer well. And her 5 children.

Has he ever suffered depression? Obviously not as it's hell on earth and to have someone like this one handed activity type tell you it's not your right to die is, well, enough to make you suicidal.

He says there is no historical precedent and yet then tells us all about how it fails in Holland. He is very narrow even then as it was legal in the NT and people did use the law and die voluntarily then until Howard, the man who was dead from the neck down, stopped it. He obviously wanted more tax payers to fleece.

If there is any truth to what he says about Holland then the answer is obvious is it not? Learn and adjust.

The most telling point to say it is everyone's right to die is that people are doing it every day regardless. All this sort of moron achieves is to force them into a situation where they may fail and end up either crippled or mentally disabled. As well as in pain for the rest of their time.

Frankly Palmer, get a life, or in your case, take you own and leave the rest of us alone. Or are you pushing for jail for those who fail? The good old days.

Depression is no reason. There is NO CURE for depression you idiot. NONE. Just relief for periods until it bangs you again.

I find the responses to this piece very heartening.

Especially the low calibre of reasoning behind the posts opposing voluntary euthanasia. Really, without the 'god' angle, you've got no good reasons to force people to endure such pain.
What's more, the 'god' angle does not apply to people who do not believe in your god. What's more, all but the most fanatical Christians agree you can't force god on anyone therefore society must respect that many, and I suspect most, people aren't particularly religious (I'm not saying a majority are atheists or agnostics, I'm saying a majority are only nominally religious).

Actually, I can come up with some good arguments to deny voluntary euthanasia, but I sure haven't seen any of them here. However, on further consideration of those points, I can't see any of them being sufficient justification for a blanket ban.

So, I'll leave you with this article in favour of voluntary euthanasia. It's more in jest, though the reasoning behind it is far more sound, and somehow it feels far more honest than the tenuous arguments put forward in this piece.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23922969-23375,00.html

Thanks Gus and Celivia for exposing the extraordinary lies the author sprouts.

It is foolish to refer to the Netherlands to support an argument AGAINST euthanasia.

Depression is excluded as a reason for requesting assisted death.

To appease the religious amongst us I’ve referred to recent information from a source that is opposed to euthanasia, so does not put a favourable light on this; the Catholic Church. The Church is up in arms at the continuing rise in numbers of deaths through euthanasia: 2003 there were 1815 deaths, 2004 there were 1886, and 2005 there were 1933 deaths.
http://www.katholieknederland.nl/actualiteit/2006/detail_objectID580596_FJaar2006.html

Sorry, it is in Dutch, but you should be able to read the numbers.

These are verified numbers. A very, very small number of people eventually avail themselves of ending their lives like this. Of all the people who request euthanasia not all will fulfil all the criteria and of those who do only a very, very small number do eventually die with assistance.

Legal voluntary euthanasia permits those who have a terminal illness, to openly discuss their death, it allows those who know they do not have long to live to actually live the life they have left. By preparing and being the main decision maker in one owns death takes away the anxiety of no relief from possible unbearable situations.

At present in Australia, it is your physician who decides when and by how much to crank up your morphine. This has two serious implications: 1.your doctor’s personal moral philosophy plays a large part in determining your death, not yours.
2. this generally is a gradual thing, though you know you are dying you may not have said all you wanted to say to those important to you before you were rendered semi-conscious.

This was a very sloppy counter argument to voluntary euthanasia.

http://www.nvve.nl/nvve2/home.asp?pagkey=71070 is another interesting link for Dutch speakers.

Lastly: it is not mandatory to avail yourself of this law if your personal beliefs do not allow it.

I have really enjoyed *almost* everyone’s very clever comments. Even though many may sound harsh in David's eyes, it's far harsher to interfere with people's choice about their own life.

I’d find it interesting to hear what David Palmer thinks about our arguments in favour of euthanasia.

Thank you for the links, Yvonne, I like the NVVE and have been receiving their newsletters for some time.

Why don’t Christians who are concerned about euthanasia direct their frustration, energy and funding in a more positive way rather than trying to constantly block people’s free choice?
I’d be far less critical of Christians if they, for example, funded more scientific/medical research, or go on a mission to pester politicians for a better health care system and palliative care so that at least patients would have a bigger chance of healing or have more efficient alternatives at their disposal.

There will always be people who want and need help to end their life prematurely, but the more inviting the other options are, the more freely they are able to choose.

BTW David, did you know that many euthanasia requests are disapproved? Only when there is no positive outlook for the patient, euthanasia is a way out.

And surprisingly, only a minority of the patients that are approved actually go through with it- for them it is a great peace of mind to be able to have it available as a last option- they hang in there knowing that if they cannot cope any longer, it takes only a phonecall to end it all.
Like my aunt, they live day-by-day, and don’t have to worry and stress about their situation for the next day.

They don’t have to be constantly scared of a cruel death, of not knowing how painful and scarey the end is going to be for them.

Hear, hear Celivia, I don't get it either.

Euthanasia is something that happens when you are dying, when your quality of life has been reduced to unbearable suffering, it saves a few weeks or months of agony.

I think that when you have a terminal disease there comes a point where you give in, you make your peace with your family and world and then just wait for it to happen.

A third of all deaths are sudden and some people will fight to the end. But I imagine that when you're old and lived your life that is how it goes.

But why extend the waiting when it is so painful. That is what I don't get.

When judge Drion proposed his pill 15 odd years ago the concept was enthusiastically received by much of the senior community.

I too David, would like to read your thoughts.

Good grief, the subject is about euthanasia not a battle of religions or atheist festival nor is it an opportunity to proselytize.
For the record I am a Secular humanist and I respect the right for PERSONAL beliefs.
To the point as someone who suffers from Bipolar Type 1 (the predominately depression version) I find the assumption that being depressed is a reason for denying my right to make decisions that have no direct effect on others is arrogant, misinformed, insulting if not plain ignorant.
No one has the right to dictate to another how they should feel or think. I can assure you fortunate people who don’t suffer constant or constantly reoccurring pathological depression that it is real pain not imaginary. Imagine being racked with pain that excludes virtually all else and without the hope of lasting relief. Rather than being an exclusion it IS a palpable reason for possibly choosing the ‘big’ out.
How dare anybody who isn’t in my mind or body enforce their ill-informed opinions on me. Much less some religious belief I don’t share. I don’t tell them what to believe so why should they tell me.
The law should simply catch up with the INDIVIDUAL'S right to determine THEIR fate if only because Australia is a secular country. So why should the (irrelevant) views of the religious dominate surely this is unconstitutional.

Well said, gushi and examinator.
I think we can conclude that our collective comments on this issue have plutoed Palmer’s article.
It’s mostly the fundamental Christians who are indefatigably in their pursuit to control other people’s lives.

I wonder if all this anti-euthanasia nonsense is just based on the one “Thou shalt not kill” commandment.
If so, it makes no sense, because Christians have had no problem killing others (the uncontrollable) without their consent, in the name of God.
God (if he existed) had no problem having his own son killed.
God had no problem drowning almost everyone including innocent animals and children just because he was in the mood for it and hadn’t thought of creating anger management classes yet.
God had no problem putting to death homosexuals, people working on the Sabbath, adulterers…

And now a commandment that was ignored by God and Christians is conveniently being used to deny people control over their own life and death?

damn you Celivia. I wish I had made those points.
Bravo.

A small, pedantic point, Celivia.
Jesus actually had to defend himself and his disciples against a claim about working on the Sabbath. (They were gathering wheat, I believe from memory).
His defence was: The sabbath was made for Man, not man for the Sabbath.
As a secular christian -I have great admiration for the ethical teachings of Christ, the religious mumbo jumbo was... religious mumbo jumbo- I read the gospels frequently, and am always amazed that ethics really haven't changed over the centuries.
The christian churches, however, tend to change more than the weather.

Examinator said: "To the point as someone who suffers from Bipolar Type 1 (the predominately depression version) I find the assumption that being depressed is a reason for denying my right to make decisions that have no direct effect on others is arrogant, misinformed, insulting if not plain ignorant."

While I agree with all those who have spoken in favour of the right to voluntary euthanasia, you won't find euthanasia legislation anywhere that does not attempt to exclude people suffering from a mood disorder from participating. I work in an emergency department and we get people in EVERY day who have tried to off themselves. Following your reasoning, we should just let 'em walk back onto the street and throw themselves under the next bus. Obviously, there is a legal duty of care to those who are suffering depression, predicated on the fact that most of them are able to be treated, at least to some extent, and may not feel the same in a week's time. You may be right in making an argument that the suffering created through continuing to live may exceed (for some, severely depressed) that created by ceasing to live, sort of a utilitarian basis for euthansia in the mentally ill, but trying to enact legislation to cover this scenario is next to impossible.

Palmer's article is dishonest twaddle, attempting to re-cast voluntary euthanasia as state-sanctioned murder, and as you can see David, none of us are buying it (other than your co-deluded flock).

Kipp said: "Assuming you are a male your prinicples are respected, but when you can give birth to a child, your comments on abortion are meaningless!"

If you are looking for anything other than meaningless Kipp, runner's posts are not where you look.

Ah, I loved the post that reminds the audience that without God being brought into the equation there is really no validity in denying any person the good death of their choice.

Throughout life, we make decisions about important issues regarding the health and wellbeing of not only ourselves but in many employments, that of the public at large and also our families. We are treated with the respect that we are capable of making important decisions in life and death outcomes.

I don't care what anyone else chooses to do with their own end of life decision making choices, but I do care what others decide for ME. Because I am becoming weaker physically does not mean I am necessarily mentally less competent to decide what is good for me, but in the event that I am, I really do believe that Living Wills, Advance Directives and Respecting Patient Choices documentation should be legally binding on any health care worker that comes across my inert body.

I have Do Not Resuscitate tattooed on my chest at great discomfort to any fashion sense, but its message is more important than my "looks",
I don't mean PERHAPS, DEPENDING, POSSIBLY! I mean DON'T and it is stamped on my body, not yours.

My life, MY choice, Your Life, YOUR Choice!

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

Stickman,
One of the given reason to doubt the judgement of a person is depression. Imagine if I were ill not terminal but sick enough to limit my activity to whereby I figured it all too much. I then asked some Dr to do the deed because I was affraid of botching it would that be permitted? Under The now defunct NT laws it wouldn't have.
My longer point was that while I understand the need to protect the vulnerable. The choice to why to terminate should be the individual's alone. Suppose further, that I'm filthy rich(instead of just plain filthy) and I wanted too or had just left 95% of my money to that Dr. I'll bet that on challenging that action my depressed state would be deemed a significant factor. Two seperate issues, but one impinges on the other. Euthanasia Laws should be reflected in all other relevent laws too :-\

Choice,
I had a look at your website, it's great. How unacceptable that in the case of the example, the wife’s wishes were given priority over the patient’s.

Grim,
thank you for enlightening me about the Sabbath ;)
Although I am not convinced that Jesus existed, I don’t have a problem with imagining that Jesus –minus miracles- might have existed as a compassionate mortal.

I wonder what Jesus-minus-miracles would have done or said about the euthanasia issue.
Without his miraculous healing abilities, he would’ve been in a similar position as doctors- what to do with the incurable, suffering people who would plea with authoroties for a quick and painfree death.
I wonder what David Palmer and other Christians think- WWJD?

Stickman,
People suffering from a mood disorder (should) have equal euthanasia rights to be assessed following application to those who have no mood disorder.
A doctor handling the application “first has to investigate the background to the request. He must make a medical assessment of the patient’s physical and psychological suffering and obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor. Their joint conclusion should have a firm medical basis and conform with accepted rules of medical ethics.”
One of the six statutory criteria for due care which exempt a doctor from prosecution is that he be “satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.”

Examinator,
I’m not very concerned about bribery/corruption where tight laws and procedures are in place.
For example, when the doctor, after thorough investigation and assessment, decides to approve a patient’s euthanasia application, s/he first has to consult another. independent doctor for a second opinion. Both assess the patient.
Also, pathology needs to be informed of the doctor’s decision and there’s also a review commission involved. Pathology performs an autopsy after the euthanasia has taken place.

Anti-religious bigotry is no more impressive than any other kind, and there's an epidemic of it in these comments on David Palmer's article. Mr Palmer does not simply argue that "the Christian God is against mercy-killing and therefore it should be illegal" - he refers to euthenasia's actual operation in the Netherlands and Oregon, and argues that there are several aspects of how things have worked out in practice that might give us pause for thought. Some of the more rabid commentators here make the very uncharitable assumption that the studies he quotes are bogus. What is the basis for this assumption if not anti-religious bigotry? (I would encourage Mr Palmer to call their bluff and cite the studies!)

Anyone with a serious interest in ethics and human flourishing should take at least a passing interest in a Christian perspective on an issue like this - and judge it on its merits, not dismiss it out of hand. In Australia today the Christian, like anyone else, has the right to argue their case in the public square within earshot of legistlators - and those who simply howl them down as would-be theocrats would do better to take a more grown-up approach.

Bearbrass you assume that all Christians support David Palmer's rejection of euthanasia, but the majority of Christians in Australia probably support euthanasia and would like their loved ones to stop the medical fraternity from life prolonging measures when enough is enough.

Celivia

you pulled this quote from nowhere:

"A doctor handling the application “first has to investigate the background to the request. He must make a medical assessment of the patient’s physical and psychological suffering and obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor. Their joint conclusion should have a firm medical basis and conform with accepted rules of medical ethics.”
One of the six statutory criteria for due care which exempt a doctor from prosecution is that he be “satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.”

Where is it from? And how does it argue in favour of allowing people with mood disorders access to euthanasia?

"Having a mood disorder" is different from being depressed. People with mood disorders can be treated (for depression) and can recover. Are you arguing that anyone who is currently depressed should be able to walk into a doctor's office, get the assessment done and off themselves? The proposed Vic legislation SPECIFICALLY rules this out on page 6 of the PDF:

"(i) if the sufferer has a terminal illness—The treating doctor is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the sufferer is mentally competent. This condition is not satisfied if the treating doctor has reason to believe that the sufferer's decision may have resulted from a mental illness, unless the treating doctor has obtained an opinion from a qualified psychiatrist that the sufferer is mentally competent and that either—
(i) the sufferer is not suffering from a mental illness; or
(ii) the sufferer's decision has not resulted from a mental illness; or
(iii) any treatment of the sufferer's mental illness is unlikely to alter the sufferer's decision; and" etc etc

So the legislation would only allow a depressed person to participate if that depression was secondary to whatever incurable and intolerable illnes they were suffering from and was NOT the primary reason for their request. That's the point - obviously people suffering from terminal illness in horrible pain will quite likely be depressed but this depression cannot, according to the legislation, be the reason for requesting physician assisted suicide.

Bearbrass

'Anyone with a serious interest in ethics and human flourishing should take at least a passing interest in a Christian perspective on an issue like this - and judge it on its merits'

You are making a big ask from human secularist who are often more dogmatic about their 'faith' than Christians. The only difference is they try and justify their view with 'science'. We saw how Tony Abbott as Health Minister was sidelined by many of these bigots.

Bearbrass, I said that David Palmer's figures are bogus and I gave links to independent figures released by the Catholic Church in the Netherlands. The Catholic Church does not support euthanasia. The figures are a fraction of what Palmer tries to let you believe.

Stickman, Celivia, Gusi and I have given several links. Celivia gave a translation of what is required. She did not grab anything from the air.

It is always good to come up with opposing arguments. But not by lying or misleading and hope that nobody can check for themselves. Australia is a multicultural country. There are people who can read Dutch and categorically state, supported with links directly to the source from both supportive and opposing camps what the figures are in the Netherlands.

It is self defeating to look at the Netherlands and the experiences there to mount an argument against Euthanasia. The law has been in place for a few years now.

Old people are not scared, nobody is 'being talked into euthanasia'. People with dementia cannot avail themselves of this as they cannot give consent. Mental illness and depression does not fulfill the criteria of a terminal illness, although there is certainly a body of supporters to review this.

Runner, you are just going to have to accept that although there are many Christians opposed to voluntary euthanasia not all are. Christians are not adverse to a doctor making the decision to up the morphine to the point that death is hastened. It is seen as a 'side effect' of pain relief. That is semantics.

I would like to remind Christians that unbearable pain and suffering before death for mere humans can last days, if not weeks. I would like to remind you that Jesus Christ, God who became man, who died in dreadful suffering for the sins of all mankind took nine hours from the walk up to Golgotha till he gave up the ghost. Nine hours to atone for the sins of ALL mankind. Would He really demand more from a mere mortal for atonement of his own sins?

Very well said, Yvonne.
Opponents of euthanasia should understand that when euthanasia is legal, desperate patients become less reliant on terminal sedation.
And, as you said, whether euthanasia is legal or not, people can still die from an overdose of morphine.
These options don’t disappear when euthanasia is legalised; euthanasia is just one more option to give patients more control.

Also, family or a partner can be under much pressure when their loved one asks for their help to end her/his life. When they agree to this ‘act of love’ they can be prosecuted. Unsanctioned euthanasia will still happen. This won’t need to happen when euthanasia is legal.

BearBrass, welcome- I see that this was your first OLO post.
The lady I wrote about in my first post chose to be euthanised despite being a dedicated Christian who went to church every Sunday and sang in the church choir. I don’t deny that here are Christians who have an open mind about the life issues; as I said in one of my first posts it is mainly the fundamentalists who want to control others.

Stickman, “the legislation would only allow a depressed person to participate if that depression was secondary to whatever incurable and intolerable illness they were suffering from and was NOT the primary reason for their request.”
Exactly, this is my point, too. We are in agreement.
I was not trying to argue that “anyone who is currently depressed should be able to walk into a doctor's office, get the assessment done and off themselves?”

As Yvonne said, I quoted from either the Dutch link or from the Dutch brochure of the euthanasia rules/Act of which the link I provided in my 1st post, if you’re interested. This is an English version.
My point was that approval for euthanasia happens only if the doctor is satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable and that there is no sufficient treatment/pain relief, whether that patient is faced with mood disorders/depression or not.

"Australia, like all Western nations, is undergoing a demographic shift with an increasing proportion of the population being elderly. Will euthanasia become a cost-effective method of medical treatment for the elderly?"

I've come to the debate late and have only skimmed through the reponses but unless I've missed it I haven't seen this point of David's taken up.

I concur with the arguments about being able to die with dignity and not having to suffer needlessly, but I still see the slippery slope argument as a compelling one in this debate.

In years to come, when the health system is even less able to cope than it is now and when an increasing proportion of the population is elderly and without close family support, there is going to be increasing pressure on older people to avoid taking up valuable space in hospitals and nursing homes and not to be a burden on society and their family.

Safeguards will be in place to begin with but as the decades pass and the practice becomes more and more commonplace, the elderly and terminally ill will increasingly feel they should take the euthanasia option and not waste scarce resources by clinging selfishly onto life. The poor and socially isolated will be particularly vulnerable.

The issue is not nearly as black and white as many here paint it.

Pegasus

“There is NO CURE for depression you idiot. NONE. Just relief for periods until it bangs you again.”

There is a cure. I’d lived with it all my life until I started down this path toward recovery. http://www.hypoglycemia.asn.au Keep an open mind and have a look. Hopefully it will be as helpful for you as it has been for me.

Hi Bronwyn,
Thanks for addressing a point that hasn’t been discussed yet. It’s very important that the laws and rules are such, that euthanasia is not a replacement of medical treatment.
There is always a slippery slope connected to controversial issues.

David Palmer, for example, said, “did Justice Menhennit, in his 1969 ruling on abortion, realise that his ruling would lead to one abortion to every three live births in Victoria a few decades later? “
First of all, Australia doesn’t keep proper abortion statistics, so David doesn’t know how many abortions are taking place- it’s a wild guess.
Secondly, even if his numbers are correct, the ruling on abortion is not the cause of abortions- lack of sex education and lack of reliable contraception are the cause. The alternative would be illegal abortions or having to travel to a place where abortion is legal. Much like people are traveling to Switserland for euthanasia or purchase of Nebutal, or resort to killing themselves in a far more painful and inhumane way.

There are countries with very liberal abortion laws that have the lowest abortion rates in the world because their perspective is that abortion and prevention of unwanted pregnancies go hand-in-hand.
While offering easily accessable abortion, they pay much attention to proper sex education and contraception to reduce the need for abortions, whereas Australia offers abortion without matching it with extensive sex Ed, and Medicare does not even fund oral contraception/condoms.

Similar responsibilities must go hand-in-hand with euthanasia.
Legalise euthanasia, but couple it to excellent palliative care including aged care so that people have a real choice.
Ideally, when euthanasia is legal, people should make a living will while still mentally able, to make their wishes very clear about euthanasia.

As lack of legal abortion laws lead to illegal abortions, lack of legal euthanasia laws lead to unsanctioned, illegal euthanasia and suicides.
When voluntary euthanasia is legal it needs not to happen illegally.

At this point in time aged care is very expensive and of poor quality. If euthanasia is legallised then there will be an increase in people in aged care requesting euthanasia and the average length of stay in aged care hostels will reduce. Keeping euthanasia illegal will just add to the suffering of people in aged care. In my limited experience of aged care only one grandfather seemed OK but he longed for detailed news of activities of his business and the others made comments about "flu is an old man's best friend".

What is the virtue of living beyond your span of three score and ten in pain, boredom and hunger, yes hunger.

In Victoria the average weight of women entering aged care hostels is 60kg, within 3 months their average weight is 40kgs, which makes it easier for nurses to lift and is the result of the average cost of a meal per patient being 70 cents. The food is often difficult for frail people to unwrap and difficult to chew with ill-fitting dentures. Then there aren't the staff to massage food down the throats of dementia patients who have lost teh swallow reflex.

When you are frail enough to need aged hostel care it doesn't matter how rich you are you are all treated as though you are aged pensioners.

yvonne

'Runner, you are just going to have to accept that although there are many Christians opposed to voluntary euthanasia not all are.'

I do accept this Yvonne. I understand that euthanasia is a complex issue. I have sat with people dying more than once. I don't have a problem with 'voluntary' euthanasia when the person is in a totally right frame of mind to make that decsion.

What concerns me most is the dishonesty of the argument. We saw that with the abortion debate. Thousands now murder their baby because it is legal and socially acceptable. Any doctor who has no conscience and murders the unborn will have no conscience when he/she can legally influence people and then terminate their lives. People who a have lived 60,70, 80 years have had ample opportunity to choose a life with Christ or to live eternity in hell without God. I have no doubt however that we will be opening the gate to many elderly dying against their better judgement. Like abortion an industry will be built around it. Civil celebrants can write their crap about where that person is going after death and all will be happy that they 'died with dignity'

Celivia

Thanks for your response.

"Legalise euthanasia, but couple it to excellent palliative care including aged care so that people have a real choice."

Good in theory, but anyone following the current trends - in demand for health services, supply of health services and demographics - will understand that unfortunately the reality will be vastly different, especially for those who can't afford to pay the price that will inevitably be commanded for quality care in the future.

"Ideally, when euthanasia is legal, people should make a living will while still mentally able, to make their wishes very clear about euthanasia."

Again, good in theory but likely to have little effect in reality. Having previously signed a document stating they didn't wish to be euthanased, would do nothing to alleviate the pressure felt by the elderly and terminally ill that they should cease being a burden and opt out, and this pressure would only increase as their health deteriorated.

I see your points on the slippery slope as it relates to abortion but they're two different issues. I support abortion and don't see the slippery slope argument on that issue hurting the poor and vulnerable as I do with euthanasia.

I can see compelling evidence for introducing euthanasia, but the long term ramifications must be considered. It's a vexed issue. And one of the very few where I can't come down clearly one way or the other!

Well, I’ve just read all the comments to date, hoping for a debate but frankly apart from my old friend Celivia and one or two others there’s not too much here.

I would like to point out that I see myself as one of any number of people who may enter a debate with a particular point of view.

I happen to operate with a Christian worldview perspective, and understand there can be different versions of that perspective as well as an number of alternative views.

I do not attempt to privilege my viewpoint but I would like to influence the debate.

To my detractors:

What I have found going through these posts is a lot of intolerant unattractive bigots who cannot get over their twisted hatred of religion (it seems to me) to mount a decent counter argument. I am a Christian who happens to be an Australian and I believe we still have freedom of speech in this country. I am willing to respect your opinion, even if I disagree with what you might say. But I’m not going to be shouted down by intolerant bigots.

I think a consistent point in a number of the comments is that I have made up my observations on the Dutch experience and therefore can be discounted. I understand the importance of this observation for if I am correct, the Dutch experience is a telling blow against legalising euthanasia in Australia.

Before I enter that aspect I note someone wished me to take my own life (pegasus, I believe, whoever he or she is) – I have no intention of doing this, though I do have myelofibrosis and from what I know of it my end (humanly speaking) is likely to be sticky. I hope I will receive the best possible palliative care at the end of my life.

Turning to my sources:

The point about boundaries being widened and liberalisation of euthanasia practice to include many more vulnerable people – see “Assisted Suicide & Death with Dignity: Past, Present and Future, Part III, International Perspective,”International Taskforce on Euthanasia and Wesley J Smith, “Continent Death: Euthanasia in Europe” National Review (December 23, 2004) www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?page=eu0025, also see Euthanasia www.euthansia.com , Thomas Halper, “Accommodating Death: Euthanasia in the Netherlands” in T. Engelhardt, Jr. (ed) The Philosophy of Medicine: Framing the Field, 2000 (Dordrecht: Kluwer) for additional reports on euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands.

Doctors now provide euthanasia/assisted suicide for the terminally ill who ask for it, the chronically ill who ask for it, people with disabilities who ask for it and for around 900 per year even for those who have not asked for it – see Wesley J Smith, “Increasing Reasons for Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” 28/3/2008, LifeNews

Dutch Doctors now provide eugenic infanticide and it is now becoming so common that the
“Groningen Protocol” has been developed to attempt to govern it – see H. Lindemann and M Verkerk, “Ending the Life of a Newborn: The Groningen Protocol,” Jan-Feb 2008, The Hastings Centre Report.

Dutch doctors also assist the suicides of the depressed. This practice of Dutch doctors assisting the suicides of the depressed was given official approval by the Dutch Supreme Court in 1993, in the case of psychiatrist Boutdewijn Chabot who assisted the suicide of a patient who was desperate with grief over the deaths of her two sons. She was not physically ill, she was not dying of cancer but it was argued that suffering was suffering whether it was physical or emotional – see second Smith article.

Re the extent of suicide in Holland, two National Studies were carried out, with the support of the Dutch Medical Association to determine the extent of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands.

To be continued tomorrow.

David Palmer, citing cases dating before the 2001 legislation is deliberately misleading on what is permissible and what happens in the Netherlands today.

Wesly J Smith and his International Taskforce, who is the author of many of the articles cited in that 'taskforce' is stridently anti euthanasia, anti abortion and anti stem cell research. You didn't give a link, I will:
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/holland.htm

Previously I gave a link to the Catholic Church in the Netherlands for the figures of death through euthanasia. The Catholic Church is not supportive of Euthanasia. The numbers they cite are not likely to be 'under reported'.

The cases you mention to support your argument were some of the cases that became part of the debate that took place in the years BEFORE the crimes act was amended in 2001. The 'slippery slope' is acknowledged, by discussing these cases. You know about them because they were seen as important to the debate, they are not examples of how Euthanasia is administered today.

Your overall tone regarding the medical profession in the Netherlands is little different to that of some of the posters you object to.

I leave some links from reputable and different sources on the ongoing debate and numbers. Only the last one is in Dutch. It is from the Institute of Medical Ethics.

http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/minbuza_core_pictures/pdf/c/c_56513.pdf
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/334/7603/1075-a?ck=nck
http://www.worldrtd.net/news/world/?id=874
http://www.medische-ethiek.nl/modules/news/article.php?storyid=441

We must have this debate openly and freely, not by quoting scary half truths or by forcing personal philosophical beliefs on another. Every terminally ill person should be able to openly and fearlessly discuss his own death and be treated with courtesy and respect. Many of us fear it so much, that we cannot believe that another could without being 'depressed'.

Continuing with sources:

The 1991 Study (see “Assisted Suicide & Death with Dignity: Past, Present and Future, Part III, International Perspective,” International Also see Commissie Onderzoek Medische Praktijk inzake Euthanasie, Medische Beslissingen Rond Het Levenseinde, Sdu Unitgeverij Plantijnstraat (1991), vol 1, p13. The study is popularly known as the “Remmelink Report.”) found that physician induced deaths accounted for more 9.1% of annual deaths. Of those deaths, 2,300 were from requested euthanasia, 400 were assisted suicide, 1,040 (an average of approx 3 per day) were euthanasia carried out without the patients knowledge or consent. 0.50% of Dutch physicians suggested euthanasia to their patients

Both 1991 and 1995 Studies (“Assisted Suicide & Death with Dignity: Past, Present and Future, Part III, also see Paul J. van der Maas, et al, “Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol 336, no 19 (May 8, 1997), p 1385, citing van der Maas et al, “Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life,” (Elseview, 1992) and Diane M. Gianelli, “Dutch data indicate physician-assisted death on rise,” American Medical News, January 13, 1997, p.6) found that although Dutch physicians were required by law to report physician assisted deaths the majority of deaths went unreported

Another study in the New England Journal of Medicine (New England Journal of Medicine, May 10, 2007) found that in the Netherlands in 2005 there were approximately 2325 (1.7%) euthanasia deaths, 100 (0.1%) assisted suicide deaths, 9685 (7.1%) deaths by terminal sedation (sedation followed by dehydration - the deaths by terminal sedation, although intentionally caused were not considered to be part of the total euthanasia practise because the Netherlands defines euthanasia as only the voluntary active cause of death.), 550 (0.4%) deaths resulted from the ending of life without explicit request (These numbers were not part of the euthanasia numbers because they lacked the requirement of voluntary request and therefore were placed in a separate category). Overall, in 2005 there were approximately 12,660 (9.3%) intentionally caused deaths in relation to all deaths in the Netherlands.

Yvonne,

On what basis can you dismiss information because it is from Catholic or other anti euthanasia source? This is akin to saying “I only want to hear one side, my side” . This is anti religious bigotry.

Today I have posted non Catholic sources more recent than 2001.

I’m all for free and open debate, but tell me why I can be called to account for “forcing personal philosophical beliefs on another”? Do you not acknowledge that pro euthanasia people such as most on this thread are doing the same and I would say rather rudely and aggressively.

Let’s debate and acknowledge, whatever side we take, we press our own “philosophical/religious/non religious beliefs on others. Can we be that honest with one another?

I have spent the last few months reading all the atheistic literature I can lay my hands on (and will no doubt be putting stuff up for posting on Online opinion in the non too distant future). Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Onfray and Harris were most definitely “forcing (their) personal philosophical beliefs on another (me)”. I understand and accept that as their mission. Are religiously motivated persons not equally entitled to engage in debate in the public square, seek to influence public policy? Are we that precious that we cannot listen to an alternative position?

I entirely agree that every terminally ill person should be able to openly and fearlessly discuss his own death and be treated with courtesy and respect. I appreciate your sensitivity to the subject. As a Christian minister, in common with all ministers, priests, pastoral care workers, etc, I have been involved in pastoral care of the dying including the chronically ill, young persons. So many experiences, deep sorrow, tears and joys, precious moments, reconciliations and hope too, we see it all.

Do not undervalue palliative care, nor the opportunities afforded. I have seen astonishing things occur.

I’m not sure I follow what you say about the slippery slope. I know it to be real: it happens, in Victoria, Ms Hartland’s proposed restrictions would be blown away within 10-15 years by presenting cases

David, thank you for responding.

Having worked in the Health system for some 32 years I've seen the invaluable care and support that pastoral care workers and palliative care provides patients AND their families. It will remain the only care that the vast majority of dying people will require.

Patients and their families have taught me that, just like a birth, a death is just never quite like it was expected or imagined. My experience has been that more often than not the dying person has come to acceptance and peace. Depressing is not a word that comes to mind in the presence of a person near death. But some aspects of their journey can certainly be so.

I mentioned the slippery slope because this is the most often used and strongest argument against euthanasia. As it is with issues like abortion. The cases you site as reasons why euthanasia should not be allowed were used in the debate in the Netherlands to demonstrate that very strict guidelines need to be laid down and that they will need to be reviewed regularly.

You can accuse me of many things but not of only sourcing information from pro euthanasia groups. I've provided links to several sources not sympathetic to my viewpoint.

The reason why so much is known publicly about what happens in the Netherlands, also in the case of infants with severe disabilities, is because serious issues like this are vigorously scrutinized and discussed. That is why the Netherlands is the only country where you will actually be able to get 'figures' on any of these issues.

Not so Australia. What happens here is the stuff of secrets. Secrets and semantics.

Calling for legislation, or as is the case in the Netherlands, decriminalization, of physician assisted suicide is NOT forcing a philosophy or belief on other persons.

It is not even forcing a philosophy or belief on any individual physician.

Runner,
The vast majority of doctors are ethical, well-trained, caring and responsible people.
Doctors, who are willing to perform euthanasia, receive special training in this area because they will have access to euthanatica.

Bronwyn,
Fair enough, I do see your points and it’s good to be cautious and look at all the negatives. I personally find that the positives far outweigh the negatives especially since not having euthanasia legalised/decriminalised has negatives as well. E.g. ”Australian 'euthanasia tourists' snap up vet drugs in Mexico”
http://tinyurl.com/4r5u2o

David,
Whether or not a country has legal euthanasia available as an option for medical reasons is irrelevant to the euthanasia debate because these deaths, that are falling outside the framework of euthanasia in the Netherlands, happen all over the world- not just in countries that have decriminalised/legalised euthanasia.

For example, The Groningen Protocol is not about euthanasia- they’re separate rules.
While I don’t find it unethical to end the life of a severely ill, suffering and dieing baby such as these cases, ( http://tinyurl.com/4lhxqu “Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’.”) doctors all over the world are struggling with the same issues and the same thing happens in countries that outlaw euthanasia, too.
( http://tinyurl.com/5wprqf , One-third of doctors would hasten death of ill newborn. )

The fact that it happens without having a name like the Groningen Protocol doesn’t make it disappear- people who deny that it is happening are in denial. As Yvonne said, it all happens in secret.

Without euthanasia laws there is no clear line about the consent of patients who receive an overdose of morphine.

Yvonne said, “We must have this debate openly and freely...”
Exactly, and this indeed is what’s usually happening with controversial issues in the Netherlands. Discussion provokes thought, challenges ideas, invites criticism, forms new perspectives and eventually, sometimes, updates laws.
If something happens secretly in practice, then why not address it through open debate?

David, just so that I know there is a point of discussing slippery-slope arguments, would you, hypothetically, approve of voluntary euthanasia if you were satisfied that the restrictions would remain in place?

David,

These are the numbers from the CBS in 2005: http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71439ned&D1=a&D2=a&D3=a&HD=080626-0828&HDR=T&STB=G2,G1

I have translated the top row for the non dutch speakers below.

total deaths in 2005: 136402

deaths without end of life decision (MBL) 78391
deaths with end of life decision 58011

Splitting the MBL numbers (58011) further:
Cessation of treatment(NIS) with possibility of death 11056
Palliative care only (PBS), with possibility of death 32229
Palliative care only (PBS), with co-purpose of death 1504
Cessation of treatment(NIS) with purpose of death 10261
Application of substance with purpose of death 2960

Splitting the last number (2960)we have
Euthanasia 2297
Assisted suicide 113
Application of substance without explicit request 551

That gives us a Euthanasia rate of just over 2%. Patients here can refuse treatment too so to include the cessation of treatment or excessive palliative care numbers does not seem right. I'll have a look at the ABS site for comparative Australian numbers tomorrow.

Obviously the 551 number needs some clarification. These figures are reported from death certificates and I doubt that teams of 'murdering doctors' would be so honest. Perhaps Celivia or Yvonne have more info.

The reason the dutch are so open about many controversial issues is not a national apathy but a desire for knowledge and control of activities within dutch society. Euthanasia occurred surreptitiously before the legislation. The new laws keep euthanasia and assisted suicide as illegal but doctors are exempted from prosecution if they follow due process.

You may want to add Peter Singer to your reading list. Dawkins, Hitchens, et al may make a lot of noise but don't speak for all atheists. I suspect there are as many definitions of 'atheist values' as there atheists.

"That gives us a Euthanasia rate of just over 2%."

Interesting figures, gusi, and very useful to the debate. The real figures of interest though would be the comparative trends. Are there any, I wonder? I'm not seriously clued up on this debate so wouldn't know, but I'm sure someone else will.

The euthanasia rate was 2% in 2005; what will the percentage be in 2050? My guess is it will have at least doubled and possibly quite a bit more. We're starting to talk a lot of people here, but the more disturbing aspect is the way this trend will impinge on all older people, irrespective of whether or not they have any intention of exercising the euthanasia option.

I'm sure it's difficult enough growing old and losing the capacity to live as you once did, without the added worry of whether or not you should take the selfless option and opt out of life instead of hanging around and taking up scarce resources. I know this is a heartless way to weigh up the value of a person's life, but this is exactly what entrenched euthanasia will do. It will place an unfair burden on all older people. Elderly people should be able to live out their last years with as little unnecessary worry as possible.

Bronwyn knowing the change in rate of assisted suicides is meaningless. It's a bit like watching the divorce statistics for Australia in the 1970s when no fault divorce became possible. There was an initial spike before the divorce rate settled to its current levels where half the marriages end in divorce.

Assisted suicides and euthanasia will go up if we build a society where health care costs bankrupt families and families will disintegrate under the burdens of high health costs.

Thank you Yvonne for your reply. I was a little sharp with you, apologies

I agree with your comment about the secrecy in Australia over statistics, trends, etc – nowhere is this more so than with abortions.

I think the slippery slope argument, considering the trends I indicated earlier in Holland do give cause for grave concern, especially when we consider the current difficulties Governments have funding the health sector. The argument being pushed for euthanasia is around the feelings and inadequacies of family and friends, when in fact it is the patient’s interest that should be to the fore, but I’m only repeating myself.

If you wish to argue that calling for legislation for physician assisted suicide is NOT forcing a philosophy or belief on other persons, then you and most of the other posters on this thread must accept that in opposing your wish to change the law, I am NOT forcing a philosophy or belief on other persons. It’s that taking prerogatives to oneself and denying the same prerogative to your opponent that I call bigotry.

You say, “It is not even forcing a philosophy or belief on any individual physician”. However, in the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report to the Victorian Government on decriminalisation of abortion whilst a doctor may decline to perform an abortion he is required, even against his conscience, to refer the woman concerned to a doctor who will perform an abortion. So much for your assurance.

Celivia,

I accept your point that some elderly/chronically ill are already being euthanised – one reason why I will be very careful as to from whom I receive care at the close of life (given that I have that choice!). I find it very disconcerting that euthanasia is happening on the quiet, though I understand some of the reasons, one of which is the widespread loss of religious faith – where else at the end of life can you find hope

Celivia, continuing

Because people break a law that has a sound moral justification doesn’t mean that the law must be changed. However I concede that this may happen as with other things. I think if it does happen we will just have chalk up another victory for the culture of death. However it hasn’t happened yet.

You say, “without euthanasia laws there is no clear line about the consent of patients who receive an overdose of morphine”. The Dutch experience of a significant number being euthanised without their permission makes this statement meaningless, quite unconvincing.

You ask, would I approve of voluntary euthanasia if you were satisfied that the restrictions would remain in place? No I wouldn’t, although quantitatively the numbers occurring would be significantly different whether the restrictions remained in place or not, and that is of real significance.

I consider your question highly hypothetical. Could you confirm to me that should Ms Hartland’s legislation be approved there would never be any loosening of the restrictions?

The current practice in Holland is not something I would like to see in Australia. I would like to hear from Yvonne and Celivia their endorsement or otherwise of the current Dutch practice.

Weren’t you just a little disconcerted to have read (and I quote the article “Mercy kill wife admits lies in court (DT, 3rd June 2008) “A woman who inherited $2.2 million after her husband changed his will one week before he died from a drug overdose has admitted lying to doctors, etc about her role in his death”. I believe she was convicted of manslaughter. Convince me that legalising euthanasia will not open Pandora’s box for all these kinds of nefarious acts.

Gusi, good luck in finding any information on Australian numbers. There are none. There is NO obligation whatsoever in Australia to notify the coroner when a dying person has died because of a lethal dose of Morphine. No doctor here has as yet notified the coroner when a death has been hastened.

This is the very point that I'm trying to make. There are no figures in Australia and therefore the assumption is made that everybody just dies here at their 'allotted' time.

There is NO requirement to notify the coroner when a person dies in Australia after refusing treatment. So, there are no figures.

During a confidential survey reported in the Medical Journal of Australia some years back, <20% of the surgeons in this study reported that they had performed life-terminating acts without an explicit and persistent request>. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/175_10_191101/ashby/ashby.html

The cases that David keeps referring to were cases where the physicians notified the coroner. That's why everybody knows about them. This took enormous courage, but it put out into the public realm what everybody knows happens, it forced the issue out in the open and allowed the discussion what is allowable and what is not. By the public. Not within a professional group to decide what's best and how to 'word' what happens.

David, as to your charge of bigotry.

This nation is a secular nation. Our laws are not the laws of any Christian church, the Islam faith or Hindu faith.

As is befitting a secular nation, there are fewer and fewer laws that are purely religious in nature.

When we speak of amending laws in this nation, it is not about enforcing any personal philosophical viewpoint, religious or non-religious. That is only possible in totalitarian regimes.

I fully support the system as it is in the Netherlands.

It is not for an atheist doctor to determine that it is OK to hasten someone's death and it is not OK for a devout doctor to determine that somebody has to suffer to the bitter end.

Great link, Gusi, I will store it.

David,
Yvonne's link shows that 20% of the Australian surgeons in this study reported that they had performed life-terminating acts without an explicit request supports my statement about the absence of a clear line without euthanasia laws. My point was that banning euthanasia does not prevent ‘life terminations without explicit request’.

You seem to think that if Australia rejects euthanasia laws, then everybody will die a natural death and have hope.
Like with drugs, prostitution and abortion, it is better to accept reality and amend laws accordingly so that there can be rules and regulations, and so that criminal issues can become health issues and doctors are not afraid to discuss, or ask advice from others, about the decisions they have to make.

Euthanasia is a personal choice; people do not belong to churches, atheists, ethicists, philosophers, doctors, and governments... Other people can assist, advise or inform the patient, but they should not restrict a person’s choice.

Now that I know that you are principally opposing euthanasia I can see very little point in continuing the slippery-slope arguments with you because even if we’d spend years finding solutions for them, you’d still be opposed.

That article you asked me to read doesn’t impress me as a repellent of euthanasia laws.
Despite the seriousness of the content I was amused when I read, “…died from an overdose of a popular euthanasia drug…”
An overdose, LOL.
BTW, if the man wanted to commit suicide and Nembutal hadn’t been available in Mexico, perhaps he’d have made himself crash into a light pole, as many suiciders do- would you have suggested that light poles should be outlawed?

Bronwyn,
“Elderly people should be able to live out their last years with as little unnecessary worry as possible.”
Agreed.
But knowing that euthanasia is an option, even if they never utilise it, gives them peace of mind. This is a fact. Like my aunt, about 70% of euthanasia applicants who are accepted never go through with euthanasia but having the option available greatly reduces their worry, fear and stress.

Celivia you say that you can see very little point in continuing the slippery-slope arguments with me because even if we’d spend years finding solutions for them, I’d still be opposed.

But that’s not the point is it? Your answer tells me that you are unwilling to accept my challenge and I therefore conclude you either deny what you in fact know, or else simply don’t care less.

Yvonne,

Our nation is a secular nation in the sense that there is no established religion. Nothing more nothing less.

“Our laws are not the laws of any Christian church, the Islam faith or Hindu faith”. But who is suggesting that?

I am acting as an advocate for a particular bunch of people. Others are free to do the same thing. Christians are just as much citizens as anyone else, despite the unattractive bigots who appear on the threads as soon as - shock, horror, someone identifies as a Christian - to deny Christians the right to express views in accord with their own world view.

You say, “It is not for an atheist doctor to determine that it is OK to hasten someone's death” – but this happens in Holland and almost certainly in Australia, and by asserting this, you perpetrate a lie.

You say, “it is not OK for a devout doctor to determine that somebody has to suffer to the bitter end”, but leaving aside the loaded language, this has been the law of the land.

It is not I who want to change anything, it is you. While I can, I will defend the right to life.

I understand we probably can't take the matter any further on this thread.

“I understand we probably can't take the matter any further on this thread.”
David, we can still try.
People who want the right to life already have that right, by law.

If the voluntary euthanasia law was about taking away rights from one group (people who want the right to life) to give to another (people who want to die), then I could understand your opposition.
But when people are given the right to choose euthanasia, nobody is taking away their, or anyone else’s right to life.
It is about adding another option, not blocking options for patients.
In this debate I am defending the right to life when people want that, and the right to death for patients who want that option.

People who want the right to die to be able to end their suffering do not have that right now, but they should.

Now, try for a moment, to debate just the principle of voluntary euthanasia- merely that patients can choose to die a soft, pain free death to stop their suffering when there is no more relief available and when there is no chance of improvement.

That is what the euthanasia debate should be about.
Of course, there are all kinds of slippery-slope arguments, but these are not part of what is being proposed when we talk about voluntary euthanasia.

You say that even without the slippery-slope arguments, you would oppose voluntary euthanasia.
But I don’t understand why you oppose it, if that is the free will of patients.
I don’t understand why you find it more moral to force people to suffer against their will than to give them free choice over their own life or death.
Why do you believe that you should be able to make the choice for other people, why can’t they make that choice themselves?
They are the only ones that own their own body, their own life.
Why would your group deserve to control whether someone lives or dies- isn’t that up to the person who actually owns that life?

"But when people are given the right to choose euthanasia, nobody is taking away their, or anyone else’s right to life."

How can you be so sure of this, Celivia? It might seem that way from where you're standing now, but the situation in the future is likely to be very different. Once euthanasia is bedded down and practiced routinely, the rights to life of all elderly people will be changed. Many will die earlier than they otherwise would have and many more will live under the cloud of a 'will I, won't I' dilemma in the last part of their lives.

"People who want the right to die to be able to end their suffering do not have that right now, but they should."

Maybe they should, but that right to die will very definitely come at the price of other people's right to live. You can argue that this price is worth the peace of mind it will give to those who need it, and that might be a defensible position. But while you steadfastly continue to ignore the costs involved in other people's lives, and debate the issue as though it's a total win and no loss situation, your argument certainly won't convince me.

Celivia,

Whatever I might think and say about the quality of some on these threads I cannot say about you.

I think you wish to pursue a line of argument but you're unwilling to engage with an argument already presented to you.

I freely acknowledge that there has always been a few people who take their own lives, with or without the aid of others, regardless of the law.

I understand the Christian faith (and maybe other faiths) has always been a source of hope in viewing death as entrance to life eternal, and perhaps paradoxically for a Richard Dawkins, such people value their life now, even when it is very difficult (I know what I’m saying!).

What the Dutch experience shows is that many of those euthanised (three people a day - 1991 study) underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent. Additionally, 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program were suffering from depression. I simply don’t want to see this happening in Australia, I don’t want to see the elderly fearing that their doctors, relatives will have them euthanised. I recoil from children up to the age of 12, including newborns, may now be killed by lethal injection with parental consent. This is not a civilised society. Just don’t tell me you can put in legislation to prevent this kind of thing. The original strict regulation of euthanasia in Holland collapsed under the pressure of presenting cases and the same thing will happen here, as with the Menhennit ruling.

Regarding your point, “I don’t understand why you find it more moral to force people to suffer against their will than to give them free choice over their own life or death”, my question to you is why change the conditions of life and death that have been in existence and accepted for all of human history? Suffering is a part of human existence – the opportunities for suffering are boundless, can you stop all human suffering. I tell you, if I need compassion and understanding, give me a person who has been through suffering themselves.

Bronwyn and David,
I’ve found no evidence that euthanasia laws will result in worsening of palliative care, quite the opposite.
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/information/factsheets.asp?id=71
”Some critics of the ADTI Bill are concerned that legislation for medically assisted dying could undermine developments in palliative care. However all the evidence from Oregon and the Netherlands demonstrates that the opposite is true - end-of-life care in both places has improved since legislation was passed”
“Research in Oregon and the Netherlands finds that patients who choose medically assisted dying are typically strong-minded, independent individuals who like to be in control of their lives. No amount of palliative care can address these patients' concerns regarding their loss of autonomy, dignity and control, and their inability to engage in activities that make their lives enjoyable.”
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/news.asp?id=253
“Study finds voluntary euthanasia in Belgium complements palliative care”

I don’t deny that there’s a possibility that people can be pressured into euthanasia. I’m saying that we need to be aware of the slippery-slopes but that positives outbalance negatives, IMO.
If there’s no valid medical reason the patient’s application won’t be approved. Two-thirds of the requests for euthanasia are refused in the Netherlands.
David, Yvonne has already pointed out that older than 2001/2002 cases have nothing to do with legal euthanasia because there were no euthanasia laws before 2001.

“why change the conditions of life and death that have been in existence and accepted for all of human history?”
Why not?
There are other things that were, for all of human history, regarded as moral and necessary and later changed. Slavery, for example.
Surgery, medication, vaccinations, and better working conditions… many things have changed that influence the conditions of life.
People, who don’t like euthanasia, don’t have to request it.
I still find it immoral to deny people the right to die with dignity.

“give me a person who has been through suffering themselves.”
And a patient who can just go through suffering and come out of it will not have their request approved.
Euthanasia approvals cannot just go ‘through suffering’- they’ll be stuck in the middle of it till the day they die.
These people cannot overcome their suffering- there is no end in sight, only death. There is nothing that can be done to get them through the stage of suffering.

Celivia

I doubt very much that the provision of health and aged care in Australia in 2050 and beyond will be anywhere near the standard it is in Oregon, Belgium and The Netherlands in 2008 or whenever these studies were done, but I won't labour the point any further. Hopefully, I'm wrong and you're right, and that the few who choose to die will not win this new freedom at the expense of the many who don't.

Bronwyn,

Sterilisation and abortion have been legal or effectively legal for a long time. There has always been a significant minority of parents who neglect or abuse their children, often because of mental illness, drug addiction or intellectual disability. These people impose enormous costs on the rest of us, as their children have to be taken into care and the damaged children may perpetuate the cycle of abuse. Yet no one is dragging these parents off to be forcibly aborted or sterilised. In fact, there was outrage a few years ago when it was found that a charitable foundation in the US was paying drug addicts to be (voluntarily) sterilised. Why do you think it would be any different with euthanasia? The issue of pressure from others would certainly be considered before any approval was granted.