Oxspen- please do elaborate on the thousands of involuntarily terminated patients, the depth of their lack of explicit permission, what qualified as explicit permission in Dutch law and what falls short, why doctors went ahead supposedly against their wishes, etc, the statistics relating to the state of the patients, a link, etc.
And lets not forget how this relates to Dutch law and allowances of medical conduct- because there is a lot of details I would like to know about the background factors leading up to the report.

The socalled 80 percent popular support is not representative because the community misunderstands the meaning of euthanasia. There is widespread mistaken belief that euthanasia is the withdrawal of medication or of life support systems. Let's be clear about what euthanasia is. It is the termination of human life by lethal injection or other lethal means, set up by another party. This definition would not attract majority support.

Euthanasia is against doctors' ethics. The doctor breaks the Hippocratic oath, which has been used for 2500 years. Doctors would be faced with medical ethics conflict -- healing on one hand and killing on the other.

It opens all barriers to killing the vulnerable. Irrespective of whatever "safeguards" are built into euthanasia legislation, there will be abuse in its administration. It will lead to uncaring relatives and/or doctors imposing death on unwilling or unaware persons at a time when they are sick/fragile and vulnerable. Sick persons, whilst in a state of depression, could agree to death by euthanasia, whereas, given time, they would prefer to live on.

The legislation of euthanasia would lead to a flood of home murders by persons who will claim to be compassionately motivated -- refer to the British case of fratricide where the perpetrator was acquitted.

It would frighten certain people from seeking proper medical treatment. Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, in serious cases, were frightened to seek medical advice for fear of being "euthanised", when the Territory's euthanasia legislation was in force.

Government has no rights to authorise death on other than criminal grounds. It ought to provide palliative care for the very sick.

""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.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 8:54:07 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

TTM At 40 or such, you can make a will for and too your own out-comes. If you wish to die, these codes will, see that your wishes are granted. These are only in the NO return's of human life. Its not a open panel for The end of life, but more if your or you that watches death to see whats inside you.

Quality of life! If there is none, or by your religion or such,...................... A vet is more apparently the choice of humanity.

You do love you pets?

And human is what?

Not good enough?

Go to the people that have had a good life, trust me, I speak their thoughts and to them, or, and go too a confusing home and see what they say.

Your judge-ment will be called.

And when your old, What will become of you.

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear.

I hope you can get to the toilet on time.

I will, at this point in time, j.....when the time comes.

and not you.

TTM

"The socalled 80 percent popular support is not representative because the community misunderstands the meaning of euthanasia. There is widespread mistaken belief that euthanasia is the withdrawal of medication or of life support systems. Let's be clear about what euthanasia is. It is the termination of human life by lethal injection or other lethal means, set up by another party. This definition would not attract majority support."

Could have fooled me, because I was under the impression that Euthanasia was precisely what you described it actually being and that was what I supported INSTEAD of withdrawal of treatment, as I was under the assumption that the ACTUAL definition was more humane than death by nutrient starvation.

But please do inform people of the correct definition we both agree on and then put it to referendum!

Oh, and the whole "what if they change their mind" tangent- funny thing is they are free to change their mind at any time right up until the drugs are injected into their system- which might leave a few minutes or error- supposing there was no consultation to measure the resolve of the patient to definitely go through with treatment. To deny them the RIGHT of a choice at all, on the off chance in the future they would definitely get a will to live (despite the prospect of that scenario failing to win them over to begin with) is stupid and lacks any actual thought beyond picking which arguments to recycle and throw in.

Oh, and I would like you also to explain to me how- and why- the doctors (or professional euthanist) euthanized the individuals involuntarily.
I'm interested in the specific cases as I imagine they would easily be addressed by alternative legal measures (and alternatively, unlikely to be prevented if euthanasia were illegal).

King Hazza,

You asked: "Oh, and I would like you also to explain to me how- and why- the doctors (or professional euthanist) euthanized the individuals involuntarily.
I'm interested in the specific cases as I imagine they would easily be addressed by alternative legal measures (and alternatively, unlikely to be prevented if euthanasia were illegal)."

I was sitting beside my dying mother's hospital bed. Mum had not said she was experiencing severe pain and a nurse (not a Dr.) said to me, "I can take her away more quickly with extra morphine". This NURSE would have euthanised my mother involuntarily if I had not intervened. And this was happening when euthanasia was illegal.

David G,

You wrote: "If the world could rid itself of all religions, then commonsense would prevail and the world wouldn't be so divided!
Dictionary.com gives one of the definitions of religion as: "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices".

Therefore your anti-religious religion (a set of beliefs and practices) is OK but heaven help those who go to Church!

Commonsense will prevail when you become consistent in your definition of religion and realise that you are as religious as anyone else on this forum (based on the Dictionary.com definition).