Celivia, at least with the now legal 'living will' (in W.A. anyway), people can spell out when they do not want to be revived or resuscitated, and when they don't want to have any further medical treatment.

Many people who get to the stage of not being able to say if they want to live or die, can at least have already written a legally binding will to say 'no more active treatment' if there is no hope for them some time in the future.

Before this came in (or if they had no living will), medical staff's hands were tied if they did not want to give antibiotics to someone with a terminal illness like end-stage Alzheimers disease who had developed pneumonia, but the patient's family members did want the treatment.

Many times, we have resuscitated people who have had dense strokes or other life-threatening irreversible brain disorders, purely because the family demanded it, only to watch the poor patient live on in a vegetative state for many months or even years.

Many people say that life is sacred- any 'life' at all.
I wonder if these people have ever watched a person in a vegetative state (little brain activity) slowly waste away over months or years?
They have no meaningful interaction with people or their environment, and no real 'life' left at all.

Anyone who believes these people should be resuscitated or given life-saving medical treatment should be charged with cruelty to humans.

...and going back to the other disturbed mindset of "the heartbeat must take full priority"- that states that quality of life is completely insignificant compared to the fact they are technically 'alive'.
It applies to both Euthanasia AND abortion- I've already listed numerous quick arguments supporting both morally and practically, as have practically everyone else here- and you have continued to avoid.

Also, the 'capacity to develop into full life', aside from being an enormously unlikely prospect from a would-be-aborted-if-it-werent-banned child, complete with social consequences for everyone and emotional upbringing consequences for the child, also has the inconvenient logical consistency to an ounce of sperm or an egg- which die all the time when people have intercourse or menstruate.
It is nothing but an arbitrary line STILL- we just pick an arbitrary line with most social importance. In short, a parent with an actual intent and a plan for their child is better for everyone than a person who wanted to kill the child but was forced to raise it.

Euthanasia- I've clearly wasted my time going into so many reasons why the "slippery slope" label is dishonest rubbish.

Dear Rhys Jones,
thanks for the extra detail, though we still disagree. It seems to me you speak of the "life to come", "life and all that it entails", naively. Life is fundamentally "unsatisfactory", to use the understated parlance of translated Buddhism, which defines life, perfectly reasonably, as "suffering" (dukkha). The worst thing about being a parent is not being able to protect your child from the suffering that is its inevitable lot in life, more or less. One of the symptoms, for me, of our deluded age, is our coupled sanctification of life and fear of death, invested more often than not in an unthinking commodity fetishism rather than any genuine philosophy. That's why people often turn to religion, to supplement their disappointment in sensual pleasure with an equally childish indulgence in in fantasies of their spiritual transcendence. Lacking this comforter (dummy), Plenty of philosophers have come quite reasonably to the conclusion that it were better never to have lived. That's debatable, of course, according to the measure you make of sensual experience, itself dependent on its privileges and quotient of suffering. There's no escaping ethics; how, since you can't relate to animals (only humans), do you square your agonising over abortions in the west with the starving humanity that lives elsewhere? Which should we preserve first; the profligate life in embryo; the 'decadent' life (aged, infirm, 'degenerate', on the wane); or the impoverished 'other'?
We live in a fool's paradise; to be too precious about any of these is luxurious. To be indifferent to life is brutish and inhumane. But our celebration of life is bogus and hypocritical when it only extends to our own, and at such cost. Ethics is the burden of the thinking animal, but it's too often rationalised and refined away.

I agree with Rys Jones article about a culture of death. My father has dementia but he still enjoys life and occassionally comes out with some appropriate remarks which indicate that he is aware of what is going on even though he rarely speaks. He had not spoken to me for a week or so and then yesterday he said as I was leaving, "Ok then Good night". Small mercies but it shows that dementia patients are not living dead.

nohj

I am very pleased to hear that you father is still enjoying life. Is it early stages dementia? It is always heartwarming, when a dementia sufferer is able to recognise their loved ones.

You are fortunate that you father is not in constant pain and bed-ridden. Did you father, while still in full mental capability, set instructions for his treatment if he should reach a vegetative state. What would you do if he does succumb to being bed-ridden and dependant on life support? Pneumonia is a common complication when the frail elderly reach a point in their illness such as dementia. I don't know if you read my earlier post, but my mother has a slow irreversible illness and has made arrangements to not be resuscitated should she suffer a heart attack. However, she is distressed that should she become bed-ridden she will not be able to pass gently from the world but will either have to let herself starve or turn off her oxygen. I can barely tolerate writing this. But is has to be said, as others have said, our laws regarding the suffering of the elderly are cruel and unnecessary.

Celivia

I think the reasoning of R Jones linking abortion and euthanasia was nothing more than an attempt to create some credibility for his claim that our society has a "Culture of Death". The two ethical questions have little in common. One is legal, treats women as responsible and prevents unwanted children, while the other treats the elderly callously forcing them to suffer until death. Neither is indicative of a "death culture". The former respects the autonomy of women the latter is just paternalism at its most obnoxious.

Dear Rhys Jones,
As I can no longer work I seek other ways to pass the time and as I received little formal education and have a thirst for knowledge and a passion for Jesus I have taught my self to surf the net. This morning I googled 'Evidence for God' and the knowledge available on that sight will keep me occupied for a long time as they challenge much of what I believed. Any one who seeks Truth will find this site very informative.
Regards Richie 10