The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ending it ... > Comments

Ending it ... : Comments

By David Fisher, published 26/10/2009

A person who wishes to end his or her existence could be helped to do so in a suitable way if their wish is rational.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
David may well be correct about the possibility of saving these two souls from an untimely end, but it seems to have little to do with euthanasia. I firmly believe that there are many people who should be entitled to end their suffering by self inflicted means. The recent case in which a court allowed a man to starve to death but not die peaceful and painlessly from a lethal drug is a perfect example of how ridiculous and hypercritical the law is on this subject.
It is a travesty, that we are forced to live in the shadow of the religious beliefs of our incumbent politicians. This is a classic example of religion interfering with the will of the people.
Posted by Saintly Sinner, Monday, 26 October 2009 10:46:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sinner,
I'm not sure that religion has much to do with it: I've always been an atheist and probably because of that, I think of our one-life-each as incredibly valuable, not to be taken or given away lightly. Of course suicide should be decriminalised, as long as more effective counselling services are in place as well. I agree with you that this article touches lightly on euthanasia rather than suicide, but this is often the problem with discussions on this topic: they lurch from talking about suicide (somebody taking their own life) to hinting at what is close to manslaughter or worse (one person taking the life of another).

Presumably, what we are trying to grapple with is how to legally take someone's life who cannot do it themselves, a legal sanctioning of the intrusion/involvement of one person in another's personal autonomy, that of a person with full knowledge of, and agreement with, what is going to happen. Surely this rules out Alzheimer's and dementia, which these discussions so often slide into.

In other words, euthaniasia has to be restricted to the fully-agreed taking of the life of someone who is unable to take their own life, but is fully aware and has shown (somehow) that they are requesting to die. The last clause seems to be the sticking point: how a person might demonstrate willingness to the satisfaction of a subsequent police investigation or court, but not be able to carry out the act themselves ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 26 October 2009 12:24:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Euthanasia should be the right of anyone who has a debilitating illness/disablility and requests to die. No ifs and buts.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 26 October 2009 12:43:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Certainly the State should put in place mechanisms that allow rational people with terminal conditions to end their life with dignity. I have motor neurone disease in my family and I personally would like the 'out' option available to me if I develop the disease and find my existence once incapacitated, overwhelming.

About 30 minutes ago too, I walked out of the my local Vet's surgery. My poor old puss after a very good and loved life suddenly collapsed and incurable heart disease was found. We held his paw and he purred as the Vet quietly put him to sleep. Human's even when they would prefer to take the option my vet said was best for my cat, are made to stay and suffer.
Posted by JL Deland, Monday, 26 October 2009 3:35:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JL Deland
I am very sorry to hear about your cat. I hope you get another that will similarly benefit from your care and many years later, your compassion if required.

Coming from the country where we have been confronted enough by birth and death to get some valuable perspective on both, I was recently quite distressed by a (city) relative who unnecessarily extended the final hours of the teenage family cat that suffered serious spinal and pelvis trauma from a vehicle. She spent that time with her children forcibly present in the afterhours surgery while she railed against the world and her husband (for letting the cat out), demanding that the veterinarian continue conducting diagnostic tests and insisting that all manner of surgery be performed. Finally in desperation the vet had a partner attend and the woman was finally convinced to allow the wretched animal a final release.

I shudder at the possible fate of anyone close to her if they are unfortunate to suffer an awful debilitating terminal illness like cancer - her emotional needs will be likely put ahead of the patient's suffering and complete loss of quality of life. Her care, their pain.

A goal of the article is to draw our attention to the Senate committee's inquiry into suicide, where the closing sate for submissions is November 20, 2009. The author is hopeful that some of us will make a submission. In my case he has achieved his purpose and I thank him and OLO for the 'heads up'.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 26 October 2009 4:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would say that both the sad suicide deaths discussed in the article were caused by depression, and not a terminal disease, as is the usual prerequisite for pleas for euthanasia.

The elderly man who slit his throat was obviously very distressed, and he was not to know that some unfortunate family member would find him and probably suffer mental health problems themselves as a result.

Suicide and euthanasia are two completely different scenarios. Euthanasia is allowing another person to help you die (usually because you either physically or mentally cannot do it yourself), while suicide is the act of taking your own life.

Euthanasia should be allowed if requested while the affected person is of sound mind. I believe that Living Wills should be a prerequisite to allowing euthanasia.
There should be strict guidelines as to who, how, when and where the euthanasia will be carried out.

One problem I can see is that not all Doctors are supporters of euthanasia. You will need a Doctor to order the necessary drugs needed for a peaceful, successful death.

If your Doctor refuses, then you will need to find one who agrees.
You will then spend your last moments with someone unknown to you.
Will there end up being a few Doctors who will spend most of their time doing this job?
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 26 October 2009 9:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With respect, King Hazza, there are many ifs and buts: most importantly, how do you distinguish between euthanasia and murder, to the satisfaction of the courts or the police ?
Imagine: a wealthy aunt, very frail and incapacitated. A nephew cares for her. He is to inherit everything. She passes away suddenly of a drug overdose. The nephew says it was her wish. How is a court to decide between foul play and voluntary death ?
What definite sign can a person give that they want to die, and be helped to die, although they cannot do it themselves ? If they can do it themselves, it is not euthanasia, it is suicide.
So euthaniasia is surely confined to those few cases where a person cannot kill themselves but can somehow make their intentions clear, to the satisfaction of a court that murder (or manslaughter) has not been committed. A pretty fine line ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 26 October 2009 11:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article David, and I would add ; so far good postings, All of them have merit.
In the final analysis,although suicide might be illegal, people do it for all sorts of reasons and the prospect of legal action seems a bit ludicrous.
Despite Kevin Andrews unwelcome act of overturning Marshall's ROTI law, Phillip Nietzke continues with his crusade to educate the religious fanatics in our midst.It is to be hoped many people make submissions to the Senate enquiry
I have contributed in the past on this subject. I am a fan of Phillip Nietzke and followed his varied and commendable proposals with interest. I will certainly compose a submission.
I know what I will do if I find myself in a terminally ill state.
Posted by maracas1, Monday, 26 October 2009 11:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good call Loudmouth, and I have indeed thought about the issue;

I think a sound legal measures would require evidence of some kind of desire to die from the deceased expressed to either a lawyer or a doctor- either in the past as some form of 'disclaimer' (foreseeing a possible inability to express this wish when a debilitation occurs), or during the illness directly to such a person.

It's a good legal blueprint, but there are a LOT of flaws in my above proposal (a person who didn't feel the need to express a hypothetical with to be euthanized prior to the illness and is now incapable of expressing it would be left in the lurch). At this point I think it should be to the discretion of a judge or doctor to determine whether the relation to the deceased acted with intent to euthanize for the deceased's benefit or aimed to profit from his/her death.

This aspect of the issue is very complicated and will need to be analyzed in more detail (tomorrow for me).

But in the context of the ill person directly conveying such a wish to a doctor, I believe there is really no grounds to deny them.
The hypothetical possibility of an heir trying to speed up their death to get their money by encouraging them to die might warrant an assessment by a professional to determine the motive- but even then it's possible that the patient might still want to die anyway.

What I shudder to propose is any right for the doctor to deny the patient Euthanasia treatment because they might (wrongly) assume the patient doesn't REALLY want to die- or isn't of sound-enough mind to make the decision properly. Hence why I'm wary of the exceptions to allowing the treatment.

I think the only grounds to deny the treatment is if the patient beyond doubt lacks a terminal disease or debilitating illness or injury that may impair quality of life or ability to function normally.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 26 October 2009 11:57:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting letters , Particular the elderly man who had to cut his own throat , personal experience (killing sheep) affords me the knowledge that this is no mean feat , a very ugly scene indeed .
That he alone decided that he wanted to go is in my opinion all that is required ; although if he wanted me to help I wouldn't want to .
On the other hand if he was horribly uncomfortable and in terminal pain that would be different I would on his behalf contact the euthanasia Specialist on his/her behalf.

Personally I intend to go early myself ASA all my kids leave home .
My urgency is Alzheimer's , I have memory problems now , as each day passes something new is a mystery , sounds sad I guess but I am now used too and accept my position , I have gone from a super speller to a Hyper-Cypher , I can't talk to anyone and that is really sad , one likes to remember a trip some where but I can't remember a place name here and there ; people make suggestions etc but in the end I get the feeling that I am just a qualified MadMonty , so now I avoid talking , I try to be quick and witty then disappear .

My big worry is leaving it too late , the man with the juice can't respond if you have lost your marbles .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Monday, 26 October 2009 11:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think King Hazza that you live in a more black and white world than I do. I think Doctors have a perfect right not to offer some services. I think any attempt to coerce such doctors to be involved against their conscience in procedures that they consider immoral or that are harmful to their patients is a dangerous thing. Afterall in China the State orders it's doctors to abort unwilling pregnant woman, some so late in pregnancy that some babies are reportably born breathing before being dispatched. Yet the State sees it as moral and the doctors obviously run the risk of repercussions if they refuse. Some questions about the when life begins or the morality of being involved in ending it are not black and white.

This is why Government should step in and make sure such procedures are available by recruiting appropriate willing staff and actually building public clinics where you can access such services instead of bringing in useless bits of legislation to try and bully doctors.

My family GP does not offer immunisations. I haven't discussed it with him, but if it's because he thinks that immunisations are a bad thing and harm his patients, then who am I to try and run all over the top of him, and maybe try and get him disiplined, instead of looking elsewhere for the service. If he has similar quarms over euthanasia, I wouldn't want him involved anyway with my departure. I'd like a cheerful specialist with no hangups. I don't want to live in a intolerant world where the seculists bull-doze people that they see as superstitious, rather than in a plural society where a little generousity of spirit from the seculists can achieve a outcome that has a better outcomes, ie more health clinics, properly funded and staffed and more services offered.
Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 27 October 2009 1:55:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the religious right & the atheith'st left.
God has given his word and he will not change it to suit us. We must change our mind if we want the truth. The buck stops with man and is about choice not which opinion fits MY point of view.
It is and always has been Heaven or Hell and is an individual choice not an accident. We have the left,then we have the right and we also have the point of balance which is the true plumb so there is a third point of view.
Posted by Richie 10, Thursday, 29 October 2009 9:36:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JL Deland- no- wrong.

-Bringing in authoritarian government practices? Nice try.

Absolutely create a new job of doctor that specializes in euthanasia (or make it an optional part of the contract), who can be called in on demand.

Outside that, doctors should do their JOB, or at least provide a referral to someone who is properly suited to doing the job.
If they can't be bothered because of their personal beliefs, then it's only fair they be required to refund (and possibly further compensate) the patient to whom they wasted the time of.

Although I would go further and say they be subject to legal action, and hold onto their jobs until a doctor equally-or better qualified- who IS willing to do their whole job, asks for the position.

To say a doctor should be able to abuse their power and the rest of the population must be held hostage is bizarre.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 29 October 2009 10:18:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suzie,and all
Let me say up front I agree with the right to die with dignity terminally ill diseases is one such example. I think one has to be careful about declaring that a 90 yo was depressed and hence ended it all.

Sadly it isn't always that clear.

Imagine, if your life has no meaning spouse dead and no other family, or they are rightly running their lives, no purpose,(meaningless) you are in regular pain ( old age is terminal, there is no pill that can restore your arthritis, bad heart etc.) and spend your day doing nothing but watching day TV. The idea of *just 'waiting for god' terrifies me*.

Who can say what or when constitutes a good time to die except the individual them selves. Old ages is relative.

I can think of valid circumstances for a 50 yo deciding they'd had enough.I can understand how to some the desire to go is appropriately constructed and in my mind valid.

Why should someone have to cut their throat so a young family member might find them like that? Why not calmly and with dignity in an appropriate place.?

I must admit if Or when I notice I am permanently and irrevocably lose what *I* consider my quality of life I sincerely hope I have the courage to end it, for both me AND my family.

Latest figures show that Lifeline get 50k calls a month on suicide.
Also the greatest killer of 30-40 year olds is.......suicide.

The questions this begs are:
What is going wrong with society that this is per head per capita become such an issue?

What can we do to fix/minumise this? Crisis intervention is only one string.

How about the bleeding obvious?

Look at the mess the world is in due to the exiting (failed) paradigm?

why?
Could there be a link?
Isn't it time for a new paradigm of looking at the issue, one that values the individual and their choice?
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 29 October 2009 11:39:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is King Hazza is that re: doctors doing their jobs, in the dissenting doctors own minds they are doing their jobs. That is preserving life and not harming their patients. I am by the way pro-choice. I can just get my head around what is going on in the non-conforming doctors brains. This being the case, Governments can bring in as much legislation as they like, it won't make the doctors tow the line. I don't think they should have to actually. Especially as until recently it was actually illegal to procure an abortion in Victoria. Imagine if the right wing takes charge, would it be okay to change it back again? If they change the rules re: euthanasia then many doctors will be in the same position.

What the State is doing re: referal clauses (and by the way you don't actually need a referral for an abortion in Victoria I believe) is passing the buck. The responsibility for providing proper health lies with them but they don't want to actually fund abortion clinics and properly advertise them, so they single out individuals (non complying doctors) and pretend to be promoting woman's health, by concentrating on them. It hasn't even been established that any women have actually missed out on abortion due to non-complying doctors in recent times anyway.

Finding doctors willing to be involved in euthanasia might be a more difficult problem but again, the responsibilty lies with the State.

Apology's if King Hazza is actually your name, but I suspect detect more than a touch of born to rule in your posts.

Sorry mate, but as one of the Monty Python generation even if some watery tart has bestowed a sword upon you somewhere along the way, I'm not a believer in the divine right to rule, and it doesn't make me anymore wrong than you, just different.
Posted by JL Deland, Thursday, 29 October 2009 12:17:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again, I don't see why it can't be decided on a municipality basis to what standards it doctors are held to (the amount of doctors to alternatively turn to if some end up being superstitious and selfish to deny their patients services), but I think it's being highly unreasonable to allow service-providers in authority to deny their services for personal reasons.

I reject the notion that people providing vital assistance in medicine reserve the right to behave as the marketing sector.

If they can't provide a referral they can refund their consultancy fee and compensate for the time wasted, at the very least.

There is no authoritarianism in this King, I might add- I'm one of the most democratically-minded people on the planet. And from that stance, the demos right to services trumps the right of middle-men to hold them hostage.

As for people willing to euthanize others- you'd be surprised how many people would participate- and no, they're not sadists- just people who most likely feel that letting terminally ill people die when they want instead of counting days in a bed with an IV feed is compassionate.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 30 October 2009 11:11:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'm one of the most democratically-minded people on the planet". Thanks King Hazza, it's good to have that clarified. If though, your friends start following you around banging coconuts together (I hope you are up on your Monty Python) and making jokes about going on Crusade, you might think about tempering your style.

You see, to me from reading your posts, you come across as belonging to one of the extreme ends of the spectrum. At one end you have the fundies raising hell and harassing people outside clinics, who are absolutely sure that life begins at conception (and even before) and on the other end where possibly wrongly I'd place you, people who don't believe a foetus has any humanity until it is of age to breath independently outside of the womb.

In between these two extremes you have people like me whose position is simply 'well buggered if I know'. That being our position, we support both the right of a woman to have a abortion if she requests one, but we also can understand that for some people being forced to participate in a termination even in any small way, is paramount to assisting in a murder.

That's why it should be put back on the State to negotiate a way through the sensitivities and make sure both views are catered for. That means building clinics and actually advertising them. Can you ever see though a Government putting to air a TV advertisment, no matter how airbrushed that actually tells women where clinics are, and that they don't need a referral? Such an ad would be very useful, but won't happen because it's not a vote winner.

I also don't see it as a issue with some people suffering from superstition. Some people might blindly take their religion's position on it, I suspect most though have done some hard thinking. It's more about philosophy than superstition. It is possible to be an aethiest and believe that human life begins at conception. I don't think to such questions to which there are any real correct answers
Posted by JL Deland, Friday, 30 October 2009 4:00:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plus people like me see the fairness issue. There is probably not one single qualified doctor out there who saw this on the horizon when they qualified. If they had, those with a problem with abortion could have chosen another career. They are stuck with it now, and some probably with a huge HECS debt.

This discussion isn't to far off topic because if euthanasia is legalised, then the policy makers need to get going now. Unlike most women seeking a termination who mostly will be able to move about in the community and seek out the service, terminally ill patients may well be to fragile to do so without help. Clearly a conscience clause won't work to make medical staff comply, so perhaps they should be looking at offering incentives, say reductions in HEC's for people from a range of fields to work in the area for a number of years.

For the record I come from a medical family. I haven't discussed it with the family's medicos, but I can't imagine the medicos in my family having any problem with either abortion on demand or euthanasia, though I might be wrong, and apologies to any of them if so. My problem is not with abortion or euthanasia, it's making sure that the rights of those with a moral contary view are respected.

Well done by the way. You haven't brought the hypothetical rape victim into it seeking help from the heartless doctor which I've usually encountered by now. For the record again, I think any doctor with a problem with abortion, who doesn't at least refer patient on to a Rape Crisis centre, should be reported.

However I'd like to raise a few of my own hypothetical cases just to stir the pot a bit and see if you still see things in black and white.

TBC in 24 hours.
Posted by JL Deland, Friday, 30 October 2009 4:05:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No problem JL, and I must say those ARE better solutions.

Anyway, the 'rape victim' case IS a lame topic to base abortions on- as aside from obviously excluding any non-rape request from the right to abort (which most advocates want), but it twists the argument of "when a fetus has rights" solely on whether the woman concieved it against her will, or did so "immorally".

(and yep- I'm a moment-of-birth person).

Look forward to the hypothesis (looks like I'll also have to wait the 24h to reply).
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 30 October 2009 6:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can we get back to the topic of euthanasia and move away from the notion that anybody opposed to it (and, it seems, abortion as well) is necessarily religious - people should be self-determining, women should be in coltrol of what happens to their bodies, everybody should have autonomy over their own lives.

If a person's decision is consonant with the narrow field of euthanasia - we're not talking about suicide or murder - then it is that person's decision - but how to ensure that the 'decision' is genuinely made, if the person does nto have the physical ability to take their own life ? i.e. probably also does not have the physical ability to write a note, or sign a document, etc. ?

Where is the space in which euthanasia is relevant or applicable but suicide or murder are not ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 30 October 2009 11:35:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KH. These examples are intended to illustrate the clumsiness of the conscience clause and how it might operate in the real world. I'm anti-conscience clause, so I'm not aiming for balance here. I'm just trying to demonstrate that things are not always black and white, though you may still see it that way, in all these cases too.

Case 1. Claire is having a rough time and she has just realised she has an unwanted pregnancy. Before she married, she got a abortion from the local clinic, so she knows the service. She has been seeing a lot of the young local doctor and now sees her as friend. So she attends doctor really looking for a shoulder , but is told that her doctor (the doctor is also aware that Claire has previously accessed an abortion and knows the ropes) has a religious objection to abortion, and can't be involved. Doctor doesn't refer her to another doctor. Claire leaves hurt, because what she needed was a friend, and the doctor didn't fill that role. In the eyes of the law, the doctor has broken the law by not referring the patient even though the patient knows how to obtain a termination.

Case 2. Sue wants an abortion. This is her third abortion. This is nothing unusual and no reflection on Sue. Sue lives in a small country town. To get an abortion, she will have to drive 150kms and stay overnight. Every election, a health clinic is promised that could not only help her avoid this, and offer other medical services but after each election, it disapears off the radar. Frustated by this, she attends the local doctor, when she is 12 weeks pregnant to ask about the abortion pill. Sue is told politely that he can not help due to his religion, but that she would not be a candidate for the RU486 in any case as she is at 12 weeks. TBC
Posted by JL Deland, Saturday, 31 October 2009 5:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He also says he has genuine concerns about the safety of the drug (his view, not mine, so not worth a debate) and wouldn't prescribe it anyway. The doctor is also aware that she knows that travel in this case is unavoidable.

He tells her though, to please contact him in case of complications post termination. Sue out of frustration with her situation reports him for not referring. This doctor even if he didn't have a religious objection doesn't have the facilities to perform abortions himself, and he also simply doesn't think he is skilled enough to do this surgical procedure.

Case 3. The extreme one! In the paper the other day was a woman who went public about her 17 abortions. She effectively is using abortion as a way of self harming. So in this case, Sarah, a woman with a similar mental illness who is up to number 8 termination, visits a doctor who in the past has always referred, but refuses to do so in this case, until she has attended counselling, because he is worried about her physical and mental state. The patient doesn't need his participation, but part of her illness is to seek attention from as many medicos are possible. Again the doctor has broken the law by not referring, but for reasons that he thinks are in the patient's interest. She reports him for not referring.

I'd like your opinion on whether any of these people should lose their jobs over these breaches. Situations similar to case 1 and 2 maybe aren't impossible occurences.

I hope euthanasia is legalised, but when it is, then there should be real measures introduced to make sure patients are able to access the service, not bits of window dressing such as the conscience clause.
Posted by JL Deland, Saturday, 31 October 2009 5:49:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But surely the sticking point still is: what is euthanasia and when is a death NOT murder, manslaughter or suicide ? Or from natural causes ? How can a court (since the legal system is supposed to protect all of us from unnatural death by imposing penalties on those who cause it) distinguish between natural death, death at one's own hand, death caused by someone at another's request, manslaughter and murder ?

A tight, narrow definition of euthanasia might be useful, instead of vague statements about somebody wanting to die but unable, etc.

And why does discussion of euthanasia so often allude to Alzheimer's, which by definition suggests a lack of conscious understanding, which is surely a necessary factor in euthanasia ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 1 November 2009 10:39:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

There was a definition of voluntary euthanasia embodied in the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (ROTI) in the Northern Territory which four people used to put an end to their existence in a dignified manner. The act required physicians to certify that the person concerned was not suffering from depression and had legitimate reason to wish for death. The Commonwealth Parliament decided to deny people an exit to their suffering in a reasonable manner. The problem is not lack of definition but unwillingness to allow people the right to choose.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 1 November 2009 10:53:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks David, fair enough.
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 2 November 2009 11:48:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm- you're right JL- I didn't think of all the implications:

1- Having prior abortions would be the obvious criteria to cancel penalizing the doctor for not referring. But the hypothetical case of knowing where to find a clinic but going to the doctor for emotional support would be quite a sticky one and I can't really make a case for it. I think it is still fair that the doctor not be allowed to charge for the consultancy though, unless he/she gave any additional advice on a separate medical issue if asked.

2- Tougher- but similar story to the last one- by providing some legal/technical input into the right to access the drug probably satisfies some consultancy-fee criteria though. Although I'm a bit wary on the right to deny prescription on the grounds that it's dangerous if it's still legally accessible (particularly someone who got injured and was in a lot of pain needing higher than average doses of morphine to soothe it- but being denied and given a less efficient drug, for example- as someone I know experienced). So I'll have to get back to you on that one.

3- Hmmm- it seems you are right- so long as the doctor's permission is not needed before accessing these services, these don't seem like grounds to lose their jobs- so I retract my previous statement (although I still think refusal to assist or provide a referral and providing no further information to questions asked aught to be grounds not to charge a fee).

Nice points indeed!
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 2 November 2009 8:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree totally on the not charging in all three cases.

The not prescribing prescription drugs goes into a harder basket. I guess for me medicine is not an exact science. If a doctor genuinely believes that there are reasons for treating a drug with caution and have done their research, I think I'd allow them their position and seek another doctor if I'd still like that particular treatment. Not always easy of course if you are injured like your friend so it's not a perfect system.

As I previously posted, my doctor doesn't offer immunisations. If that's for reasons of convenience to him, and he has no issues with the safety of immunisations, then I don't think he is doing his job. It's a pain for me. If though he has genuine concerns about their safety, then I think he has the right to withhold and not prescribe.

For a dramatic example, I've heard a story of one of our family medicos who about 40 years ago did not prescribe his pregnant patients a drug that was supposed to control their nausea. He was uneasy about the drug. Some of his patients might have been grumpy at the time, but when he delivered their babies, they had all their fingers and toes. Yep - thalidomide. My doctor 20 years ago likewise decided only to perform relatively new ultra-sounds on his pregnant patients if medically indicated - 'just in case' they had negative side effects. Now they are proven safe and are routine but I don't think he was wrong in his approach.
Posted by JL Deland, Monday, 2 November 2009 11:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My hypothetical doctors of course were of the polite variety as all doctors should be. A social worker friend told me the story of taking a 14 year old client seeking a termination to a doctor where the 14 year old copped a lecture about it being 'good enough for her mother' also pregnant at 14 and she should lump it. I don't think any doctor has a right to wave any sort of personal moral stick at patients seeking a termination and should be the subject of a complaint if they do.

In my perfect world my social worker friend would have not even thought about taking his client to a GP. There would have been a clinic where she could get a range of advice on all sorts of health issues (and it made sure there was nothing sinister happening to her at home) a termination if she wanted one, and advice on bringing up baby or other other options if she decided against it. Also in my perfect world all doctors taking on new patients let their patients know that they don't offer services such as termination or euthanasia, and not charge for that visit if the patient goes elsewhere.

I don't live in Victoria so I don't know what sort of follow up the government did when they legalised abortion. Be nice to think they sent every house hold a letter letting them know, and telling people how to access the service as well as setting up a information hotline and information being put up in public places. I bet they didn't though.

If we legalise euthanasia then all the same issues of access will come up. People if not provided with access and information even if it's legalised will suffer and any it will probably be the less educated and well off that will resort to taking drastic measures at home.
Posted by JL Deland, Monday, 2 November 2009 11:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep- nothing more for me to say I complete agree!
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 7:53:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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