Oh come on, Cornflower. You began your first post in the thread with a snipe at me, obviously intended to "provoke a fight". You're so disingenuous.

If you'd read through the discussion, my comment about the undue influence of the Christian lobby on the major political parties in Australia was very much on topic. I didn't "label" or "provoke a fight" with anybody.

Why don't you practise what you preach for a change?

IanVE4ME - it's good to see that there's some Christians who are actively supporting the legalisation of euthanasia. I wish you every success.

CJ Morgan, "IanVE4ME - it's good to see that there's some Christians who are actively supporting the legalisation of euthanasia. I wish you every success."

That is the way CJ, now that wasn't too hard now was it? Soon you might even accept that few Christians are the feared 'fundies' of your nightmares and the greatest majority are quite ordinary people who are flexible enough to be convinced by argument.

Likewise it isn't only the 'Christian lobby' that seeks to influence government.

It is not the Fifties and few Australians would allow themselves to be swayed by an interfering priest (likely to have the opposite effect), so there is every reason to suggest that the opposition to euthanasia is founded mainly in concerns and misgivings outside of religious belief. Survey respondents might say 'yes' in theory, but it is obvious it isn't a burning issue with voters and very likely there are unresolved fears about practical problems in operation, especially in a society that doesn't seem to respect or care for the old and infirm.

As well as the predictable religious concerns about euthanasia, the BBC came up with ethical, practical and historical concerns that would be at work here too. Rather than cut and paste the list, here it is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml

King Hazza,

You wrote: "But do prove me wrong!"

Not when you don't know how to assess the logical consequences of a "choice" world and life view.

""McReal,You stated: "No laws will stop the informal hastening of death that occurs now. The Dutch experience is 20 years out of date, so current proposals need to be looked at in light of current societal views, and an optimal 21st century palliative care program."

"This is a straw man logical fallacy. Whether it was 20 days or 200 years ago does not affect the fact. The Dutch euthanasia experience proves that euthanasia legislation cannot stop the slippery slope of killing more people than the legislation permits."
Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 13 May 2010 5:45:15 AM

No it's not "a straw man logical fallacy" - its directly about the point[s] you raised and contextual.

What is a straw man logical fallacy is reference to 'the other categories' in this -

"" We hear lots of talk about "choice" in euthanasia. Couldn't the paedophiles, DV perpetrators and thieves make the same claim? "It's my choice". "

We need optimal palliative care, and an option for the patient if that does not work which includes advocacy, power of attorney, and a medical panel. Hastening of death with morphine is a minor hastening, anyway.

Re the effectiveness of palliative care.

Dr Roger Hunt, a respected senior Palliative Care Specialist, in South Australia, who has strongly and consistently advocated the need for the legal option of Voluntary Euthanasia, said this in an email to me last year.

“Just about all dying patients experience suffering and the extent to which it can be relieved is difficult to quantify.

Certainly the suffering is such that between 5 and 10% of dying cancer patients request VE. The last resort in palliative care is to provide ‘pharmacological oblivion’”.

Pharmacological oblivion means the suffering person is put into a coma until they die from starvation (slow) or dehydration (quicker). Is this the most humane way of dying that our society can come up with?

OZ PEN <you say the nurse wanted to kill your mother with a lethal dose of Morphine.>

Why then did he ask you if that is want you wanted for your mother, presumably to end her suffering. He was giving you the choice or else he wouldn’t have asked you. he would have just done it. You exercised your right of choice in saying no. No slippery slope there.

The slippery slope statistics you quote may be just an honest revealing of something that could not be revealed before in case of prosecution .

So you think it’s kind to let severely disabled children live. I think it is very cruel. I often look at some of these poor people and think how much better it would have been if they had been allowed or assisted to die at birth rather than have to live the way they do. I’m talking about the severely disabled people here not the ones who can function reasonably adequately.
How would you like to live in a body that writhes and jerks (severely )none- stop 24hrs a day for the whole of your life? They would probably die anyway in a lot of cases without medical life support. Morpine and assistance is probably given out of compassion rather than to let them die slowly as they would without life support.

They wouldn’t be upset about not being alive because they wouldn’t know they weren’t alive. Only the living can get themselves in a nonsensical state about death because they can think about it