Some quotes from the article:
“choice”
“choice”
“choose”
“choice”
“choice”
“choosing”
“choice”
“choose”
“choice”
“choice”
“choice”
Hmmm, sounds familiar.
Trouble is, like the people who’ve historically “argued” for “rights” on this basis, proponents of euthanasia do not take into account other affected parties.
Just like abortion doctors will destroy an eight month old foetus without its consent, there will be euthanasia doctors (and nurses, as OzSpen relates) who take the lives of those who are unable to consent or haven’t even been asked.
No laws can stop this informal process, as the Dutch experience demonstrates.
“We’ll just speed along the process to make this bed available.”
“I wouldn’t want to suffer like they are, so clearly they would want me to do this.”
Euthanasia advocacy is just another example of promoting “human rights” of those who want the right to “choose” while paying lip service (laws which can’t be enforced) to the impact on others.
Needless to say, anyone who is against euthanasia is vilified as a religious right reactionary.
Hmmm, sounds like another familiar “argument”.

"The Remmelink Report is ...."
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 9:49:46 PM

The Remmelink Report ... refers to a situation of 20 years ago, when palliative care, the overall debate and views about application, advocacy etc was less advanced.
.................................................................

It ought to provide palliative care for the very sick.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 11:23:25 PM

Palliative Care needs to grow to be the ultimate service it can be, yet there are and will be cases that optimal palliative care does not provide relief for - it is only those cases that ought to be considered for euthanasia.
...............................................................

abortion doctors will destroy an eight month old foetus without its consent, there will be euthanasia doctors (and nurses, as OzSpen relates) who take the lives of those who are unable to consent or haven’t even been asked. No laws can stop this informal process, as the Dutch experience demonstrates.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 12 May 2010 8:58:36 AM

Any "eight month old foetus [terminated legally] without its consent" is because it will not live to be able to provide its consent i.e. it will die within one yr.

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 The Dutch experience is 20 years out of date, so current proposals need to be looked at in light of current societal views, and an optimal 21st century palliative care program.

Pretty much McReal.

It's funny actually.
As Ozpen said himself (and proving me right), this was one zealous nurse who would have taken it upon herself anyway regardless of the legality- and more specifically, the whole matter was up to her- I think a better system would be to have a specialist euthanizer who must be summoned, legally, by request of the patient, and only these individuals have right to do so (and there ARE lots of humane people willing to do it).

And "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)."

This implies my worries of sincerely not being able to grasp anything beyond a religious order.
The reason we keep picking on religious people so much (perhaps too generally) in the euthanasia debate (and abortion) is the sheer irrationality of opposing something that is logical and in many dimensions humane to do, based on nothing but values passed through indoctrination, shared only by people who follow others thoughts, instead of evaluating the issue more deeply that 'euthanasia could be abused (due to specific reasons) but must be banned outright for everyone just in case'.

And as Proxy demonstrated (aside from all emotion and no logic in his crazy rants), is a MASSIVE disability to comprehend personal willpower- because such people tend not the HAVE any of their own, being so used to following a hierarchy- even in views of the world.

And you STILL haven't told me more about the Dutch patients- you merely gave an implication that a doctor or nurse saw them in pain and jabbed the needle in AGAINST their wishes.
This isn't going well.

I am a religious person and an ex health worker. I support euthanasia for anyone dying in agonising and/or hopeless circumstances provided that person has requested with their Care Team at some point in the progress of their illness or through an advanced health directive.

To all you other 'holy rollers' out there I say God would oft times get his job done much better without the interference of Man trying to play God.

How often did I see during my 12 year nursing career, horrific attempts by Doctors & Nursing Staff to maintain life in the face of unspeakable suffering and minimal odds of medium to long term survival? Far too many ...

And dear reader, if you, like me would rather avoid the fate of being kept alive at all costs I suggest you make a Health Directive that clearly outlines what treatment you will accept and under what circumstances. In the absence of consent (if you are unconcious or unable to communicate) Doctors will treat you as they see fit - which may be vigorous attempts to prolong life. Don't rely on your next of kin knowing what you want - they may be ignored.

However I also concede that for as long as I've known there have been those kindly Doctors and carers who have increased the dose of narcotic painkiller (usually morphine) to the point where unconciousness, respiratory failure and death occur where the suffering of the patient has been profound and hard to manage. God Bless Them!

BTW a lot of that so-called involuntary euthanasia quoted in the report on Netherlands would almost certainly been carried out on end-stage illness where the patient had lost conciousness or in cases of advanced dementia or other states of total incompetency in the moribund person. I take that report with the proverbial grain of salt

Palliative care, at its humane best, will use morphine to minimize pain. That usually works, at a modest dose-rate, for a while. As pain increases, in conjunction with disease progression and together with the patient’s body becoming increasingly insensitive to the drug, palliative care requires increased dose-rates.
That is standard practice. However, if no other cause intervenes, it will lead to death.
A nasty business, no doubt, to the pro-suffering brigade; and going on some of their posts it would be euthanasia. I expect they might be horrified that there would be some patients beyond capability of speech, perhaps in the absence of any direct request for life-threatening dosages of pain relief from a patient in obvious agony; preferring “suffer until my God takes you”. That is not entirely hypothetical: a nurse in Charters Towers a few decades back was charged by the local police with just such a “crime”, and faced lengthy court procedure as a result.
Those countering civilized and sensitive legislation on voluntary euthanasia have not improved on the dour Scots Presbyterians who campaigned against the use of anaesthetic during childbirth when that became available in Scotland: that it was God’s will that women should suffer in childbirth.

divine_msn

That was a really good post. I guess it shows that it's a lot easier to argue on morality when you are not witness to the effects of your argument. A good point also on the fact that doctors "play god" by extending life to a point far beyond the natural limit.

It seems to me that doctors see death as disease that needs to be treated, instead of accepting it as an inevitable part of life