Well said proxy for it is am individual choice, Please have the intestinal fortitude not to involve others in your preference for politicians are not responsible for your personal choice's, you are.

snake,

You claim: <<It has been suggested that euthanasia will develop into something more than an individual right to die. This is just a smoke screen to frighten people into believing the safeguards are not adequate just to see their own beliefs are adopted.>>

You don’t seem to know euthanasia history very well. Holland is one example of euthanasia “rights” being violated.

The official Dutch Government report (The Remmelink Report, 1991) gives conclusive evidence of abuse. The Dutch report shows clearly that doctors are killing without the explicit request of the patient. Doctors have violated the "strict medical guidelines" provided by the Dutch courts.

The Dutch report in the British medical journal, The Lancet, states that "in cases of euthanasia the physician often declares that the patient died a natural death" (p. 669). This report indicates that 0.8% of the 38.0% of all deaths involving euthanasia were “life-terminating acts without explicit and persistent request" (p. 670) (Paul J. van der Maas, Johannes J.M. Delden, Loes Pijnenborg, and Caspar W.N. Looman, "Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life", The Lancet, 338:8768, September 14, 1991, 669).

Dr. John Keown, Director of the Centre for Health Care Law, in the Faculty of Law, University of Leicester, U.K., has completed a research project on euthanasia in Holland. He concludes: “It appears that the overwhelming majority of cases are falsely certified as death by natural causes and are never reported or investigated... It is clear from the evidence set out in Keown's research that all that is known with certainty in the Netherlands is that euthanasia is being practised on a scale vastly exceeding the 'known' (truthfully reported and recorded) cases. There is little sense in which it can be said, in any of its forms, to be under control" (I.J. Keown, "The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands", in The Law Quarterly Review, 108, January 1992, 67, 78).

Before making your kind of claim, I suggest that you acknowledge the historical research regarding voluntary, active euthanasia’s slippery slope.

"I believe in everyone's right to top themselves. In fact, the more the merrier.

"If all the euthanasia advocates put their money where their mouth was, we wouldn't have to bother with this debate. Just shut up and top yourselves, if that's what you want to do."
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 6:15:14 PM

"... it is am individual choice, Please have the intestinal fortitude not to involve others in your preference, for politicians are not responsible for your personal choice's, you are."
Posted by Richie 10, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 7:35:52 PM

These comments are glib, and bordering on nonsensical and inhumane.

Most people do not have the means to suicide, especially those infirmed by disease. Most do not want to do so - they want to go in a peaceful, non-anxious way, and probably with loved ones at their side, not complicit in the drama that surrounds suicide.

............

""once you legalise euthanasia for those who choose death, you inevitably introduce euthanasia for those who are unable to make the choice for themselves. It's the old slippery slope."
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 6:15:14 PM

Rubbish. Advocacy and power of attorney cover these situations.

OzSpen,
Well done for digging up the slippery slope evidence.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to sway those who have found a new "human right" to champion.
Anyone who questions the new "right" they've discovered is of course immediately branded as a reactionary.
More to the point, I don't think they give a damn about the collateral damage that would accompany the legalisation of euthanasia.

proxy,

Here are some specific details of the slippery slope in the Netherlands. Another assessment is that the real number of physician assisted deaths, estimated by the Remmelink Committee Report is, in reality 25,306 which is made up of (they're on the overhead projector for you to see):

2,300 euthanasia on request (Remmelink Report, 13),

400 assisted suicide (ibid.15),

1,000 life-ending treatments without explicit request (ibid.),

4,756 died after request for non-treatment or the cessation of treatment with the intention to accelerate the end of life. cf, ibid, 15; there were 5,800 such cases but only 82% (i.e. 4,756) of these patients actually died. cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 63ff

8,750 life prolonging treatment was withdrawn or withheld without the request of the patient either with the implicit intention (4,750) or with the explicit intention (4,000) to terminate life. [ibid., 69]; There were 25,000 such cases but only 35% (i.e. 8,750) were done with the intention to terminate life.
Cf ibid., 72; cf also Remmelink Report, 16),]

8,100 morphine overdose with the implicit intention (6,750) or explicit intention (1,350) to terminate life. Of these, 61% were carried out without consultation with the patient, i.e. non-voluntary euthanasia.

There were 22,500 patients who received overdoses of morphine, cf Remmelink Report, 16. 36% were done with the intention to terminate life, cf Dutch Euthanasia Survey Report, 58. See ibid., 61, Tabel 7.7 ("Besluit niet besproken")].

THIS TOTAL OF 25,306 PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED DEATHS AMOUNTED TO 19.61% OF TOTAL DEATHS [129,000] IN THE NETHERLANDS IN 1990.["To this should be added the unspecified numbers of handicapped newborns, sick children, psychiatric patients, and patients with AIDS whose lives were terminated by doctors according to the Remmelink Report" (pp. 17-19). Source: Dutch-speaking Dr. Daniel Ch Overduin, Vita, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1992, pp. 2-3].

<<Rubbish. Advocacy and power of attorney cover these situations>>
McReally?
Didn't you read OzSpens post?
"Advocacy and power of attorney" are theoretical protections.
The Remmelink Report is empirical evidence that refutes your assurances.