“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 can relate a similar story of a friend’s mother, who was finally placed in a hospice because of advanced Alzheimers. The friend and her husband were determined to keep Mum at home where they could care for her but the mother had finally deteriorated so badly that she needed professional care. In addition, the elderly woman had managed to get out of the house unnoticed a couple of times, shuffling down the main street, naked.

For about a year, the mother never spoke one word but somehow fell out of her bed in the hospice, breaking her hip and it was only then that an advanced cancer was detected. Who would know if a mute woman had suffered unbearable pain from the cancer? One evening when my friend was holding her hand, the mother opened her eyes and after all those months of silence uttered five words: “I wish I was dead.”

Unfortunately the hapless woman never spoke again, lingering on in silence and her death wish was not granted until some six months later.

King Hazza

You will find as you become more familiar (and I hope you do stay around) with OLO, I'm sure it applies to other webblogs, that you can agonise over every word, research every point and write with a clarity that was previously unknown to mere mortals.

And still, some numb-nuts, will either repeat what you have written or ask the question which you have already answered.

In fact I will add Celivia has also clearly outlined the set of procedures that must be followed for euthanasia in the Netherlands. None of this seems to get a grip on a single neurone let alone received and understood by some people.

The slippery slope argument gets aired to the point of erosion. For example, if we applied the same logic to driving cars, no one would be let out on the roads because of the potential for death and other trauma. Ironically, monitoring the wishes of a patient is easier than halting the actions of some freakazoid on the freeway.

Go figure.

Dear shadowminister, I have not gone into all the details due to the length such an article would require. However, as far as the right to do what one wants with ones own body is somewhat limited in our society anyway. For example, I am not allowed to inject heroin into my body even though such an act would not harm anyone else. However, to equate the interest of a woman in aborting her foetus with that of the foetus is absurd. In most cases a woman who does not want to have a child will only be inconvenienced by carrying it to birth and adopting it out. The foetus stands to lose its life. There is little comparison in the interests of the two.
If a man fathers a child, we expect him to pay for that childs upbringing for at least 18 years. This is hardly trivial. I would think this a much greater imposition than carrying a child to term and then adopting it out. The father does not have the option of killing that child either before or after birth.
Of course if the woman's life was at risk due to the pregnancy then it would be morally permissible to kill the child as it would be in self defence. These cases are rare fortunately.
As far as the ability to feel pain goes, I fail to see how this is relevant. If I kill an adult painlessly, I still deprive them of their life. Exactly what we do to a foetus when we abort it.
With regards to sperm and eggs, these will not develop into a human unless the sperm fertilises the egg and the fertilised egg is then implanted in the uterus of a woman. I simply feel there is no moral justification for killing a viable foetus that can't be applied to a newborn baby other than the right of the mother not to carry the child. And this moral justification is not, in my opinion, enough to justify extinguishing the life of another person.

“In most cases a woman who does not want to have a child will only be inconvenienced by carrying it to birth and adopting it out.”

Rys Jones – I do not live in your narrow world so let's not get too intellectual since I understand that while estimates vary, the oft cited figure is that the number of unwanted children living independently in the streets total between 100 million and 150 million worldwide and adoption is a very remote possibility. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, India has some 18 million children who live and work on urban streets all over the country.

Australia is a rich country and shamefully, already has some 866 children's homes and orphanages so how do you justify breeding even more unwanted children because you think you can unload your night of passion by registering the unintended consequences for adoption?

And while you eat three meals a day, there are around 1.5 billion poverty stricken adults and children, worldwide, who are malnourished and miserable, struggling to cope with an outraged planet.

The facts say little for your adoption delusion. And while childless couples in Australia wait years to adopt a child of 'their' choice (similar to ego-centric humans who choose only pedigree canines), thousands of children, born to delinquent or ignorant parents, are being ill-treated, sold off to the highest bidder, drugged, raped, bashed or murdered.

In addition, I would strongly encourage abortion or sterilisation for potential parents who are afflicted with Aids and genetically inheritable diseases where their progeny can expect to live a short life of pain and misery or become orphaned - yet another statistic. For what purpose? A life of pain and misery for someone else may suit your ideological agenda Rys Jones but what are the benefits for the victims, may I ask?

Hi Severin,
Exactly, this is why we MUST have legalised euthanasia in Australia. Forcing people to die a horrible death is totally unnecessary as there is a range of effective euthanatica available. No wonder that people like your dear mother find it distressing to know that they may have to suffer a painful or very scarey death.
Perhaps the title of this article should be changed: “A Culture of Torture”.
And thanks for your insight regarding Rhys’ view on the two ethical questions (abortion and euthanasia).

Nohj,
Euthanisia would just be available for those who need and want it. It is not an opt-out thing, it is opt-in, so your dad will have nothing to worry about!
If your dad would want to opt for euthanasia, he could request it, and then a medical team would assess his condition and decide whether to grant his wish to die, or to offer him alternatives such as paliative care or a new treatment.
As I said, the vast majority of people who request euthanasia are denied it in favour of other available treatments, medication, palliative care. It is reserved only for those, who have no other options and no outlook of recovery.
Still agree with Rhys? If yes, what other objections do you have to legal VOLUNTARY euthanasia?

King Hazza,
Great posts. The opposition need to reply to our questions, but then they would have to think, so they can’t be bothered. I hope you will consider to keep at it for a while- sanity is most needed her.

Rhys,
I agree with you regarding illegal drugs. Therefore I advocate legalising drugs. Drug use should be a medical issue, not a criminal one.
The reason that you cannot properly lay-out these issues is that you are trying to cram too much into one article. Discuss abortion separate from euthanasia. This is the reason I choose to discuss euthanasia only. Abortion is already legal and what you say is moot.
Euthanasia needs attention now because people are suffering because of a lack of such a law.

TBC

Loudmouth.
I agree that it is weird that the religious are not more in favour of euthanasia than they are for the reason you gave.

But I also find it weird that you continue to oppose it. Have you read my above posts and do you understand that legal, voluntary euthanasia is an opt-in choice, not an opt-out?
There is no slippery slope. You either opt-in, or you don’t. If you don’t, then you will not be euthanised under any euthanasia law.

People with advanced Alzheimer’s who have never bothered to organise euthanasia contract/papers when they were still mentally capable, automatically would disqualify even if they requested it.
These people would therefore NOT be eliminated anymore than they are now.
In fact, there would be more control and regulation, it would be more difficult to euthanise unqualified cases as things would be out in the open.

I am too, an atheist so I would agree that there is nothing after death. But why does dying itself then have to be painful or scarey? I don’t understand your logic.

You say, “The right to do it 'for' somebody ? Precisely NOT if they insensate, incapable, unaware -…”
As I said, the insensate, incapable, unaware do not qualify for euthanasia if they have not beforehand, when they were still mentally capable, arranged euthanasia with their supporting medical team. And yes of course every patient who requested euthanasia would be psychologically assessed and councelled.
It is only AFTER that process, that euthanasia will either be granted or denied.

You say that you want people to have the freedom of choice, but by being against a euthanasia law you are against giving people choice at all.

And LOL, I was waiting for Godwin’s law to come into this debate. It always does!
Euthanasia laws have nothing to do with the nazi’s. ANY euthanisia law would be about opting-in, not forced upon people.