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 > General Discussion > Torture in a so called

Torture in a so called

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. All
Banjo Paterson

Your story of Nippy, says all that need be said on this topic. Brought tears to my eyes. I have made posts on this topic on OLO many times in the past - from personal experience. I don't wish to repeat myself, therefore suffice to say that forcing people in situations like Christian Rossiter to live on, when they have clearly requested release, is nothing more than deliberate torture as Yabby has stated.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 8 August 2009 11:36:19 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
Col,

"Rob P – yes the choices of one are foisted on the other…

and I believe the one who gets to make that choice (the pregnant woman), should not be your limited to what you would "foist" upon her."

Just to clear the air on this issue once and for all (hopefully), I wouldn't call myself the foisting type at all. I'm saying that the practice of abortion is wrong.

What you can't see is your own contradiction. You call yourself a libertarian ad nauseum. Don't make decisions that affect the rights of others to make their own decisions in life, you implore. What you conveniently do is to truncate that principle to only apply to things that you can readily see. In other words, you're just following the political contours of the debate to, I suspect, continue to have a nice comfy life whilst preaching to people from your "superior" position. If you acknowledged that abortion was wrong, the whole edifice of your argument would fall apart. So you don't.

But you are right in the sense that the woman still has a will, will make decisions that are based on it, but will also suffer the consequences of any bad or wrong decision she makes.

What I am really saying is that it's better to have a guard rail at the top of the cliff than an ambulance at the bottom. I'm trying to do my bit to stop people from making a bad decision in the first place because, bit by bit, if unchecked it infects the whole of society including those that don't want any part in it.
Posted by RobP, Saturday, 8 August 2009 12:28:11 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
Dear Yabby,

I wonder why this problem has been created. Since
the preservation of his life helps no one, and is
desired neither by him nor by those who love him
most dearly, why couldn't the doctors not be
content to let him die in peace and serenity?
Why does the medical profession pursue a vigorous
therapy that benefits no one except their own
satisfaction in thwarting death, regardless of the
consequences?

I don't know the answers to these questions.
All I can do is feel so sorry for the people
involved and pray that it won't be me further
down the track.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 8 August 2009 2:11:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Why does the medical profession pursue a vigorous
therapy that benefits no one except their own
satisfaction in thwarting death, regardless of the
consequences?*

Foxy, for the medical profession these days, much of
what they do, comes down to a legal question, due to
so many lawsuits etc. In a case like this, its about
criminal law. At what point will a doctor be charged
with aiding so called murder? Some doctors have
been charged before, so they have to be pretty careful
in what they do. That is why this particular nursing
home wants a clear legal position, before they do
anything.

The West Australian did a survey and found that 80%
of the population support voluntary euthanasia, but
the politicians won't touch it, as they know that the
other 20% still matter on election day.

Its not a vote swinger for most people, but it is for
those extremists who campaign against it, like the
Right to Life Association.

The NT tried to introduce voluntary euthanasia some years
ago, but Kevin Andrews cranked up the Federal Catholic
lobby, which is larger and more influental then many might
think and the NT legislation was sunk.

All very sad really, that they think its better to let a
bloke starve to death and still call themselves civilised.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 8 August 2009 2:41:49 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
Yabby is correct. I have been involved in the health care system for years and we have always been very careful about respecting some patients wishes.
On the one hand we have a terminally ill or hopelessly disabled patient begging us to be allowed to die, and on the other hand the law is saying no.

Mostly we get around this by respecting the patients wishes not to recieve treatment or nutrition. We simply supported them with medications to assist in relieving their symptoms while they died.

Those that refused food usually died within a month, while those that refused food and fluids usually died within one to two weeks.

These deaths were usually fairly peaceful if the person had no underlying disease causing them pain or other symptoms unrelieved by medications.
And herein lies the problem.

By law, we are not allowed to administer a lethal injection. If we do then we will be charged with murder.

So we watch these poor sods, who are in unrelieved pain, nausea and vomiting or bowel problems, take weeks to die slowly by starvation and thirst.
All the while, we have the patient, their relatives and friends all begging us to 'do something'. It is heartrending to watch.
Palliative care does not always work, although it has certainly come a long way.
I suggest we have all the opponents of legalised euthanasia work as carers in the hospices or homes where these patients are suffering.
Posted by Moondoggy, Saturday, 8 August 2009 3:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby,

I agree with you. Lawyers blanch at the thought
of trying to draw up legislation to protect
people who, out of compassionate motives,
help others commit suicide. Some believe - as do
opponents of euthanasia - that such legislation
would be abused by people eager to push dying
relatives out of the way that the law should stay
as it is.

However, I feel that there must be some sort of
"safe" system of dispensing euthanasia that can
be written into law - and it's up to the
Parliamentarians - the law makers to ensure that it
is.

However, as you point out - at present our reps don't
hear pro-euthanasia crowds beating down the gates -
so they do nothing. What we need is a strong group
to lobby on behalf of those who want to die.

Governments are generally reluctant to push any
controversial legislation before the Parliament
of any nature unless there is a strong public
demand for it, or unless there is a strong public
benefit from it.

It's not enough that there's more noise provoked
from a hostile minority - there's got to be more
noise from an approving majority. Basically,
politicians are "wary," (I think) - of the Right to Life
movement.

What would of course embolden the MP's to cater
to that approving but almost mute majority would
be the support of the Australian Medical Association.
That support is so important because of the role
doctors would inevitably have to play if active
euthanasia became accepted. But the AMA has said
time and time again - "...it goes against what we're
all about!"

The basic duty of a doctor is to preserve life, not
end it. If the patient is terminally ill - all the doctor
can and should do (according to the Medical Association) -
is make the patient comfortable.

Why can't a doctor's role be more about preserving
dignity than life and in the end leaving it up to
the patient's right to choose?

I'm dreaming right?
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 8 August 2009 4:45:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. All

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