No David, I'm not dealing with strawman because down in Victoria you have the situation where medical staff have to be involved in abortions against their conscience by law. That naturally raises the issue of how we would handle euthanasia. Do we do the same with euthanasia to make sure people can access it? Pretending that it's not a issue won't make it go away.

A parliament has said it's okay in the first case, so a Parliament could say it's okay in the second. Of course I wish it wasn't so, because it brings the issue into some disrepute and gives the anti-euthanasia people I think some ammunition. It's a elephant in the room, and as elephants eat straw - no strawman here anymore!

Susieonline of course has to deal with the other side of the coin. Where family won't allow a family member to go and insists on continuing treatment long after it being kind. Probably if the staff proceeded according to the patients stated wishes, then there would be all sorts of trouble and accusations, even legal or police coming their way from the family.

tbc

Maybe we should deal with it by separating out the people who make such decisions from the everyday staff. I sort of like the idea of a team of specialists who skilled at easing people out of this world anyway, and that could include family counsellors.

People could lodge a statement of their intent with something like the Public Trustee and in such a case their wishes could be enforced over the families objections. They could also be made aware of the existence such teams through the hospital or community organisations and request to see them. Nobody wants to cause the family pain, but you could have a bunch of born again christians imposing their will on Dad who is a fiesty scientist with strong views.

I don't think that we can include mental illness as a reason for euthanasia, though many would argue for it. I've had friends with bi-polar who have attempted and in one case succeeded in suicide. It's a bloody condition. But it might be the disease talking when someone requests death, when in six months they may be more okay with the world.

We don't see death on a regular basis like in olden times. It's santised to some extent. But there is the term 'blessed release' and on the battle field before modern medicine, a terminally injured soldiers mates might give him 'mercy'.

I agree, King Hazza, I’ll wait for some answers from Rhys while continueing talking to others.
I’m also awaiting a reply from Loudmouth.

Fester,
I don’t understand your reasoning.
The efficiency of euthanasia legislation lies not in numbers, as is the case with organ donation. The efficiency of euthanasia would depend on whether it is available to those who want to request it; not on those who reject it! It merely needs to be available to those who need it to be effective.

It’s like that with most services, isn't it? We still need to have hospitals available for those who need it, even if the majority of people won’t need the service.
The efficiency of hospitals doesn’t rely on the number of people admitted to hospital, but on the availability and benefits it offers for people who need it, no matter how many admissions there are.

Legal euthanasia is merely a service, which people can choose to take or leave.

Do you still think, now that several posters reasoned with you, that one can have sufficient autonomy without the ability to make choices about one’s situation

Dear JL Deland,

You wrote: "I want people who want such things to have access to them, with full government support and services from willing people of a similar mindset."

In other words if the provider doesn't want to give the service the provider doesn't have to. I agree. However, unless the provider is willing to provide the full range of medical services available then I don't think the provider of medical services should retain his or her medical license.

The above is a slippery slope. If a medical person has the right to refuse to perform an abortion or euthanasia even though the patient wants it then the the medical person has the right to refuse to perform a vaccination or any other medical treatment.

Hi JLDeland and Davidf,
Medical staff would have, as far as I know, the right to be not involved with euthanasia and still retain a medical license.

But as the demand for doctors who are willing to perform euthanasia will grow, anti-euthanasia doctors will eventually be ‘naturally selected’ out of the system. Hospitals will have a need for doctors, who are members of the euthanasia organisation, and patients will seek out these GP's, as well.

We will probably see a shift, and these doctors will only be able to find employment in areas where there is least demand for euthanasia, such as areas with a majority of young families.

Within a greying Australia, there will be less and less opportunities for anti-euthanasia doctors to find employment.

Even if, like in the Netherlands, only 1% of palliative patients opt for euthanasia, the general population will want it to be available, just in case they might want to request it later.

Once euthanasia legislation is in place, naturally euthanasia will become part of the curriculum at all medical schools, and newly trained doctors will have to deal with this during their training. Then it becomes established and the zeitgeist will move on and eventually there will only be very few doctors who would still oppose euthanasia.

All this does not mean that euthanasia will be thought of lightly and that it would be easy to have a euthanasia request granted. It remains a difficult decision and a team of professionals will always need to be involved to make sure that patients have tried a wide range of alternative treatments.

Also, many people who were granted euthanasia find peace because the worry and weight is off their shoulders, and, as in my aunt’s case, die a natural death as they become more relaxed and able to keep postponing it, knowing that at any time they can tell their doctor to end their pain. It is amazing how much more relaxing, peaceful and better able to cope with pain patients become once they know that they have this option.

Hi Suzeonline. I'm sure you not an evil person who simply wants to kill everyone with Alzeimers. However, suppose someone has declared they wish to be killed when they become demented, and no longer remember doing this. Would you still feel it is okay to kill them? Would you tell them you are giving them a lethal injection or just do it without their knowledge? I think it is a frightening situation that you propose when we kill a person who no longer has their faculties regardless of what they may have said in the past. This is particularly the case with our aging population which is going to place enormous pressure on our ability to care for people in the fairly near future.