The discussion has to begin with some definitions, some examples of where VE already exists, and how it is managed, arranged and otherwise legislated.
We cannot debate without the facts of what we are debating.

The facts exist for the debate. The debate is not about voluntary euthanasia. The debate is about the right of government to censor such debate or a debate on any other position that a large number of Australians support.

I agree with the thrust of the article that the government exceeded its rightful authority in banning the ad.

I agree davidf. It is similar to banning of the anti-abortion website. Governments whould not be in the business of policing viewpoints which differ from their own unless the view being pushed is illegal.

There has certainly been a lot of debate on euthanasia to date and some constructive research and debate from all sides needs to be had to determine the best course of progress. We need to both respect the right of the individual to die without pain as well as ensure that there is no inherent dangers such as a reduction in palliative care and that people who are unwell feel an obligation to die.

I think the risks are low on the latter and have faith that we can come up with the right mix. There is nothing worse than watching a loved one die in pain.

I agree with this enlightened article which, once again, cites the politically ignored fact that 85% of us believe persons with incurable diseases which cause unbearable suffering should have the right to physician assisted death. We are supposed to be a civilized society. We fall far short of that.

I do disagree with Pelican, who sees nothing worse than watching a loved one die suffering unbearable pain. But his view is quite understandable, as many fewer than 85% would would want to gift the blessing of a peaceful accompanied death to the incurable and severely mentally ill. I ask them to reconsider.

Nothing is worse than having a beloved daughter die in unbearable pain, rational and lying alone on a railway track at night, reaching final peace by completing suicide after two previous attempts. She had once said "If you helped me they'd get you for murder". She was told that didn't matter. It was of no help.

When all that is good in life is disintegrated by schizophrenia, as it is for at least 20% of those who suffer this incurable disease, surely one should have the right to end an unendurable existence in peace. This should be a human right for all of humanity.

I think that there is an element in society that cannot tolerate folks being free and fearless. I wonder what the correlation is between folks that passionately support the "war on drugs" and those who oppose VE?
Both seem to involve an extreme level of "sticky beaking" and a fundamental misunderstanding of crime and the role of policing because the outcomes of prohibition are far worse than the "crime".
To me this attitude is extremely arrogant, dangerous and ignorant: What part of "mind your own business" and "stop harming society" do folks not get?

Voluntary Euthanasia is really about Love and Compassion; the desire to fulfill the wishes of a terminally ill human being to end their pain and suffering in the best possible way , humanely, with the presence of loved ones, at a time and place of their choosing, without the shocking surprises of discovering a hanging corpse,a gory gunshot scene, the exhaust pipes into the closed car or a head-on collision. To quote an old friend whom I visited in his last days "You wouldn't let a bloody dog die like this"

Caroline93 you raise a good point.

I must admit I don't quite know how I feel about assisted suicide for those who just don't want to go on anymore for whatever reason, whether it be mental illness or other circumstances. Pain is not the only measure - I can understand that but am a bit raw from a recent experience.

My first reaction is we should do everything we can as family and community to improve the life of those who are afflicted with these sometimes unbearable conditions. But that must sound naive and idealistic to someone who has gone through your experience when the reality is sometimes quite different. I have worked in a field where I came into contact with people suffering with schizophrenia and even the best case manager can make little difference.

There is a natural instinct for humans to value and treasure life but we are all responsible for the course our life takes and perhaps this has to include a choice to die without interference from meddling governments and others.

But I have to admit I do feel a bit uneasy about the concept - (probably conditioning) and will have to think more on the subject. Ultimately it seems obvious we should have the right to die as free individuals .

Voluntary euthanasia is opposed by politicians who vote along the lines of their own religious convictions. As such they don't vote along the lines of the majority of the people they are supposed to represent.
This is an abrogation of democracy and thus my personal rights.

I agree Snake. It shouldn't be up to the Government to say no to even a debate on Euthanasia if so many people in our community believe in voluntary euthanasia.

Apart from the usual religious and moral arguments against voluntary euthanasia, there would be multiple legal issues to deal with should they agree to such a law being passed.

Some questions that would need to asked first, before it becomes law,
would include:

What ailments would be covered by the law- would there have to be considerable unrelieved pain as a prerequisite?

Would conditions such as quadriplegia, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, or other muscle/nerve wasting diseases be included?
Or would it just be terminal diseases causing pain, like cancer?

At what stage of any palliative illness will it be deemed the time for euthanasia?

Would there be an age limit? If it only includes adults, then are we saying that children's pain is more bearable?

What about the mentally ill or intellectually disabled dying people?
Will they be expected to bear unbearable pain because they haven't the ability to make the call for euthanasia themselves?

What medical practitioners would be expected to administer the final injections?
What if your own medical practitioner was not a supporter of euthanasia?
Would you have a set number of Doctors willing to do the job?

Yes there are literally hundreds of questions to be answered and laws to be drawn up before we can ever have effective voluntary euthanasia legislation.

Maybe that is the main reason our politicians are reluctant to even talk about this issue?
Maybe it is all just too hard

Dear snake,

Where did you get the idea that Australian parliamentarians represent the views of their constituents? They are obligated to vote the way the party room (generally this is what the party leader wants decides.) or face severe consequences. In the rare conscience votes they can vote their conscience. This often is an expression of their religious convictions. On very rare occasions they may actually represent the views of their constituents or consider the good of Australia, but I think many parliamentarians never do either.

Personally I think I have no problem with 'voluntary' euthanasia if it is voluntary. The problem I see is the same thing happening as the extremely dishonest promoters of abortion where it was all about the poor girl who was carrying a child after being raped. Now millions of murders happen yearly and the industry is thriving. I suspect strongly that most of the 'promoters' of this 'mercy' industry really have little knowledge of mercy. It shows in the callous way they deal with the unborn.

This quote is telling

'Once the principle of mercy killing is accepted in law, it cannot be confined to those who give their consent. Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia go hand in hand. According to the Dutch government’s Remmelink Report, for example, of the thousands of people who have their lives deliberately shortened or terminated by medical staff in Holland each year, over half are non-voluntary. “In the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands,” says Dr John Flemming, Director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute in Adelaide, “more are killed without their knowledge and consent than with their knowledge and consent.”2'

http://lifeministries.org.au/pamphlets.php?content_id=63

Thanks, Runner (you won't see that very often !) - how does that work in the Netherlands ? How do they get away with it ?

Voluntary euthanasia is identical to suicide, right ? An act of pure personal autonomy ? Nobody else involved, not with the actual act of administration ? e.g., a person exclusively operating their own morphine pump ?

Murder is the taking of another person's life, when that person does not want to die, i.e. can be assumed not to want to die (presumably, we will never have to go around with 'I DO NOT WANT TO DIE' tattooed on our foreheads ?)

So, murder as an act of absolute denial of personal autonomy ?

The word 'euthanasia' has been used for everything from suicide to mass murder, from an act of personal autonomy to its opposite.

So in what sense is it being used in this discussion ? How do you stop it sliding from one to the other, once another person becomes involved ?

The terms by which persons were able to access their planned voluntary Euthanasia were clearly established by Dr Philip Nitschke and enshrined in the Legislation that was enacted by the Northern Territory Parliament that clearly placed the decision in the hands of the terminally ill person, whose condition had already been confirmed by Doctors.

Some posters are already dragging red herrings across the issue, raising the same old fears as were debated at the time.

EXIT international still follow the same guidelines and safeguards which should be examined before again seeking to reinvent the issue just for the sake of argument.

Loudmouth

'Thanks, Runner (you won't see that very often !) - how does that work in the Netherlands ? How do they get away with it ?'

I don't know how they get away with it but I suppose its pretty hard for a dead man to take the decision makers to court.

Quite frankly the DEBATE is over- every point has been covered to the finest detail in various debates in the past (thousands accessible online), and of course there are countries that ALREADY ALLOW IT, which we can use as a reference.

It's time for the politicians to stop sucking the religious lobby's (appendage) and treat us as if we are sentient autonomous persons with personal rights, of a supposedly free society- and not like sheep in a farm.

To choose when to die and to be allowed to die with dignity and without pain is every person's right.

There is so much fear in many peoples' lives because they currently don't have the right to choose in these areas. No, church leaders and lawyers and politicians and the medical profession want the right to decide for them.

But do these people want this right for the good of the patient or for the good of themselves? Themselves, of course.

To force people to die horrible, painful deaths is disgusting and inhumane and unnecessary. The people who are responsible for this tragedy should be able to be sued!

If that happened, the situation would quickly change and euthanasia would become just another part of life.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

Ah, your Majesty, would that all the world had your purity of heart.

I suppose there is some legal maxim in relation to the writing of new law, about preparing for the best, while accounting for the machinations of the worst, but most of us can surely envisage a hypothetical situation in which someone wants to knock off someone else - it's the stuff of a multitude of novels, plays and films, after all - and naturally must couch such self-interest in expressions of love, concern (cf. David G), avoidance of pain, and so on ?

Yes, I too hope that, when my use-value is exhausted, I will not be thought of as no more value than a withered old sheep on a farm, an inconvenience to be put down. As an atheist, I know there is nothing after death, so I may as well hang on to the one and only life I willl ever have, anywhere - my one flash of eternity. In fact, I hope that I can remain a nuisance and a burden to my children as long as possible :)

Death comes to us all and with-out the quality of life.... whats the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxd_EFDd4s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVS8BtdphNA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6tAgJStVlo&feature=related

But this one made me think, who in this case has the right to end her life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ536H5U5w&feature=related

Warning! some images are distressing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81inBCTZhl4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_FOwChggIc&feature=fvw

If all hope is lost, and death is better than living in pain, I don't think any loving God would hold that against you, for what is the right thing to do.

I would rather have a living wake and say good-by and thanks for sharing my life with you.

Life-support!

NO!

Just be human and let me go.

PLEASE.

I hope Iam ever in the above.

If there's no hope, Why would let someone you say you love, DIE in pain.

There comes time to let go.

TTM

Hi TTM,

Ah ! sweet quality of life, at last I've found thee,
Ah ! At last I know the reason for it all;
All the longing, seeking, striving, waiting, yearning,
The idle hopes for life, the pointless tears that fall !
For 'tis death, and death alone the world is seeking,
And it's death, and death alone, I've waited for;
And my heart has heard the answer to your calling,
For it's death that rules for evermore !

Yeah, right.

My wife died from liver cancer two years ago. At the time, she was acting Head of the SA Indigenous Education Consultative Group, and heavily involved in other education bodies, Catholic Education (even though she wasn't a Catholic but an atheist) and the wonderful Federation of University Women (AFUW) of which she was the Indigenous rep in SA. She had many, many ideas about what needed to be done in the next twenty and thirty years in Indigenous education, from pre-school right through to tertiary level (actually, come to think of it, she had worked at both those levels). Death cut her short, a tragedy for Indigenous education, particularly in SA.

Don't treat death so lightly. You can't do much when you are dead, and there is so much to be done here and now, while you're alive.

I would expect a Right-winger to say 'no, b*gger it, don't change anything, let it all go, die now', and a believer to say something similar: 'don't worry, there's another life, this one doesn't matter, let it go'.

But no. There is so much to be done to bring about justice and equality. There is no other life but this, no other chance to get anything done but now.

Don't treat this issue as if it's just another cute intellectual exercise. It's dead serious.

Joe

Loudmouth, I am sorry to hear about your wife.
I admire the fact that you hold life to be so precious after what you must have gone through with your wife.

I don't think it is death that is so attractive to people that they want to see voluntary euthanasia legalised.

Almost all the terminally ill clients I see say they are willing to fight it to the end, but only if they have well controlled symptoms.
Many have seen relatives who have had unrelieved pain, nausea, incontinence and vomiting during terminal illnesses, and are afraid of going down that path as well.

We have excellent palliative care these days, and we are improving these methods and medications frequently.
However, there remains those few clients where nothing we have works for them.
I envisage that we would only need voluntary euthanasia for these few people, should they request it.

That would be the value of this legislation. Those who don't want it can say so, and still get all the care and attention we can give them.

Those who do want euthanasia at a set time in the path of their illness can then request it legally.
It's as simple as that.

Loudmouth.



No-one's holding your personal views for you to be a "nuisance and a burden to my children as long as possible" :) that's why you can put on your last will and testament( while still in your sound mind, what ever that is ) that you wish to cost the health system as much drain as possible because of the fact that you would like to go out kicking and screaming.

Well, that's fine.

"My wife died from liver cancer two years ago.
If you don't mind me asking, what was her last wishes( not yours ) her thoughts on the matter?

"Death cut her short, a tragedy for Indigenous education, particularly in SA.
Yes the lost of anyone is sad, as you know.

And as you know, I give two sides of the fence so to speak, and in my opinion, the senator of the Democrats has my frame of mind to a tee.

And with the baby boomers coming through, I hope your children don't need bed at your local hospital since the aging population is higher than the infrastructure allows, by the lack of vision by the Howard government and in pockets of the capitalists that puts money a higher importance than a sustainable Australian head count.

The above sounds cold, but the facts are the facts, and all in, there are lots of points to the bigger picture, and that's just one of many concerns humans in this century, which by the sounds of it, you wont have long to go yourself;) and we will not see your disillusions on the matters when your demise comes round, since you have made it clear what you think.

A little selfish don't you think?( humans in general ) And I will just throw this one in for good measure as well.

Making the aged work longer is just as insane, since know one will move up the ranks in the promotional relems,and the bigger picture doesn't stop there.. and the quick-sands of time will be up around our necks sooner than you think.

TTM

TTM,

You haven't got a clue, have you ? It's all just a word-game to you. Not a bl00dy clue.

Euthanasia was discussed on Q&A last night with an idea for a conscience vote.

My first thought was that was a good start but why are we letting the politician's use their conscience vote - why not put the vote to the people themselves?

There is no way our MPs can represent us on a conscience vote unless they canvass their electorates and go with the majority vote. This won't happen of course.

Put it to a referendum.

Hear, hear Pelican! Bring the referendum on.

If euthanasia is legalised then probably a small number of people will want to access it. But it should be available to those who do want to access it. It will also be reassuring to a large number of people that if things go really pear-shaped in the health department they can go if they are ready and not rely on either going early or going overseas, or involving someone else in something that could seriously rebound on them,to help them. It's nobody's business but the people's who want to access it. Those people who object to euthanasia simply don't have to access the service. Nobody is thinking about having a open slather without there being strict safeguards.

Well done the Greens for putting it back on the agenda in Parliament. It's a ridiculous situation where commercials are pulled, yet the grownups (cough) in Parliament are allowed to discuss and talk about it but the broader public shouldn't.

no doubt Pelican would oppose a referendum on the death penalty. Democracy when it suites just like in the US voted against gay marriage very recently. If you think you might win a referendum you are happy to have it, if not let the socialist decide. A tad hypocritical.

A close friend of my mother's is in a
nursing home. She doesn't know where
she is or how long she's been there. She
can't read, watch television, walk alone,
use a telephone or play card games. She
has no bladder or bowel continence, she
can't dress herself, feed herself or
transfer from bed to chair to bathroom.

She is no longer aware of her plight.
She's in a semi-vegetating state,
she has lost her functional and mental
independence, and she's about to become a
financial as well as a physical burden.

As her friends and visitors deal with the agony of
her vegetation, they can't help but wonder why this
problem has been created since the preservation of
her life helps no one, and is desired neither by her
nor by those who love her most dearly.

Why couldn't her doctors not be content to let her
die in peace and serenity?

I also watched "Q and A" last night. And I fully agree
that it should be a person's choice - the right to die.
I can understand religious people in not wanting to make
this difficult choice - however, I resent their having
the ability to impose their views onto every one else.
I agree that we need to have safeguards put in place,
and have things regulated - but I do not believe that
it serves anyone to keep people alive long beyond the
point at which they would normally have died were it
not for the currently available technology. Patients can
be hooked up for days, months, or years to machines
that sustain their lives, and this step may be taken
even if they are in constant pain or even if they are
permanently comatose. Thus technologies that were
intended to save people from unnecessary death may
actually have the effect of depriving them of a
dignified death.

We need a Referendum - so that people can finally
have a choice as to what they want done.

runner
As usual you cast judgement on those you don't know - not everyone lives in your world of zealots. How many times have I written about more direct participation by citizens in policy. Bring on any referendum you like whether it be abortion, death penalty, a republic euthanasia or parliamentary reforms. As long as the referendum is legitimate ie. poses a number of variable options or structures (unlike the highly manipulated republic referendum) and that the outcome is honoured unlike the ACT self government farce.

Loudmouth I am positive I had this discussion before on this site and painstakingly elaborated all of the legal implications, which is why I simply can't be bothered to repeat myself this time and asked others unsure to not be so lazy to expect people like me to go out of my way to explain what they cannot be bothered to seek themselves;

Anyway, in a nutshell, the standard would require the following:
-Allow doctors, nurses, med students to apply to training and a license to became a euthanasia-practitioner (on public salary pay), who may ONLY be called over at the REQUEST of THE person suffering any kind of substantially debilitating ailment that lowers quality of life, or terminal illness; If such a person requests such a person, the medical staff MUST respect his/her request. The practitioner will then interview the patient, describing the procedure and ask for confirmation if this is what they are willing to do. Only after these have been established will the practitioner set up the system to end that persons life, and only activate with the willing consent of the patient a second time.

Whether the reasons given by the patient satisfy a third party is irrelevant and should be none of their business to intervene through some kind of authority.

Those suddenly rendered incapable of expressing their wishes would rely on some kind of WILL expressed to a medical or legal representative prior to the situation, as proof that they would prefer to die. Without it, then they could arguably not have the will to die, with no expressed intent to base this judgement on.

Simple.

Great responses on OOL. Perhaps though there might be also a place for a new law. Many people who comment on the web know about Godwin's law. Call someone a Nazi and you have lost.

I think something similar should be applied to the first one who calls something or someone Socialist when an argument is raised that you disagree with.

We could call it Runner's law because Runner would be the first to see Red's under the beds behind progressive ideas and use the 'S' word. Personally I like Socialists very much and I don't mind them being associated with such ideas. It just gets tedious that's all.

Pelican I apologise. It is strange however that I have never heard people calling for a referendum on Islam immigration, off shore processing of illegal immigrants or late term abortion. We did see however how the zealots performed when people recently voted against gay marriage in California. I take it you think the Government should of agreed to the wishes of the people? If not why would you propose a referendum on euthenasia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxd_EFDd4s&feature=related

Runner and all that like to cast down their so-call humanity, and I would like you to look at this once again. Its true most members can see the human in themselves, but unfortunately some cant.

Runner! When you stand before your god, and he ask you why the people did not show mercy and kindness, what are you going to say?

Thank-goodness for the men and women of this forum that have compassion
and the real sence of the word, and not these hypocrites that pretend to be gods children.

Like the young lady said...... you would not treat your dog in this manner.

And if GOD is true like you say my friends, I can only imagine he would frown down upon you with the look of discuss.

Go on......... look at her!

And yes it is simple.

"Those suddenly rendered incapable of expressing their wishes would rely on some kind of WILL expressed to a medical or legal representative prior to the situation, as proof that they would prefer to die. Without it, then they could arguably not have the will to die, with no expressed intent to base this judgement on."

and the above is just one of the many things that needs to look at with most haste and never let this happen again.

It can be worked out.

Thank you.

TTM

lol. That made me laugh. smile.

We could call it Runner's law because Runner would be the first to see Red's under the beds behind progressive ideas and use the 'S' word. Personally I like Socialists very much and I don't mind them being associated with such ideas. It just gets tedious that's all.
Posted by JL Deland, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 3:22:51 PM

Pelican I apologise. It is strange however that I have never heard people calling for a referendum on Islam immigration, off shore processing of illegal immigrants or late term abortion. We did see however how the zealots performed when people recently voted against gay marriage in California. I take it you think the Government should of agreed to the wishes of the people? If not why would you propose a referendum on euthenasia?
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 3:43:11 PM

Oh runner, lol Give it time my friend, all of what you have mentioned is just around the corner, and I,ve just started to grow hitler moe.

TTM.

smile.

Thanks, King Hazza, I'm working through the ramifications of what you wrote. But I don't think it is at all 'simple'.

Surely the essential factor is the autonomy of the person ? I have no problem with what in the olden days used to be called 'suicide' - an act of a person in relation to him/herself alone. Of course, wherever possible, potential suiciders should be identified, helped, counselled, encouraged to always look on the bright side of life, etc. But the final choice should be theirs alone.

Where a person cannot act, and has to rely on another person/agent or entity, it gets more complicated. Clearly, they must be of sound mind, so this rules out any discussion of people with Alzheimer's, and those sorts of illnesses.

I'm also uneasy about using 'poor quality of life' as some sort of rationale - this really is starting to get uncomfortably close to rubbing out the unwanted. 'Quality of life' should play no part whatsoever: if anything, surely someone who has had a poor 'quality of life' is entitled to some compensatory or higher 'quality of life' ? But it should be their call, nobody else's.

No, your Majesty, forgive me but I don't think it is 'simple' at all. To be continued ......

I believe that one should have autonomy to die as one wishes.

However, I do not believe in involving others.

Doctors already can give pain relief which is known, will shorten the life of the sufferer.

What patients and doctors should address is whether a particular course/protocol is prolonging life, or prolonging the dying process.

Danielle is at least honest about the belief many supporting euthanasia have

'I believe that one should have autonomy to die as one wishes. '

It is sickening how many insist that its about compassion. Many supporters of euthanasia know if they were honest to the public about them seeing this as a rights issue rather than a compassionate one then they would have little chance of succeeding with attempts to legalise killing.

Loudmouth- you are absolutely correct, and I must apologize that I didn't clarify before;

But yes, my point is that the Euthanizer can ONLY act if the patient actually asks them to kill them.

Quality of life is simply an extended clause to remove requirement of doctors or euthanizers to kill someone in event of a legal loophole of requesting the treatment in a brief temporary state that may likely not continue to provide the same answer (as the double-check before hitting the switch measure).
This I personally don't mind if you find innappropriate, because it is more of a contentious failsafe than an ideal process.

Pre-statement of death in event of prevention of self-expression being another one;
(to be continued)

Dear runner,

I totally disagree with you on this issue.

You call it "legalised killing?"

Why are you not content to let a person die
in peace and serenity when they are in great
pain, have lost their functional and mental
independence and are only being kept alive
by artificial means? Why do you think it
just that doctors pursue a vigorous therapy
that would benefit no one except their own
satisfaction in twarting death, regardless
of the consequences?

Can't you see that technologies that were
intended to save people from unnecessary
death are actually having the effect of
depriving them of a dignified death?

And you call their right to die - "legalised
killing?"

How do you feel about capital punishment?

King Hazza,

MY point was that, at the simplest level, suicide should be legal, it should not be a criminal act. Of course, counselling, etc. should be available.

At a more complex level, of a person suffering a terminal illness, whether in a hospital, hospice or at home, if that person was still capable of operating, say, a morphine pump, then that person should have access to such means, to administer their own treatment. But, given the necessary involvement of some health care provider in this case, the oversight of this process, in practice, would have to be formally supervised by qualified staff. But the bottom line here would still be the self-administration of the process. I think this may conform to your scenario, or one of them.

We get into very tricky territory when we start talking about people who do not have the physical means to self-administer. If people cannot self-administer, how do they indicate their wishes one way or the other ? Yes, a quadriplegic person perhaps can speak, and therefore can indicate orally before appropriate witnesses, etc. Perhaps, like Javier Bardim in 'The Sea Inside', he can suck from a poisoned drink through a straw - after all, this is still an act of personal autonomy.

But where people cannot do even this, how does one know their intentions ? Issues of cost, 'quality of life', etc. should play absolutely no part in any of this, by the way - these are mealy-mouthed erosions of personal autonomy which should be ignored. So clearly, there are boundaries around what is permissible and what is not.

And surely, as somebody wrote in a newspaper today, we should be putting much more into palliative care and pain relief ? Sometimes, I wonder if a lot of this sanctimonious talk about deep concern and compassion does not constitute something of a straw-man ?

[TBC]

King Hazza and Foxy,

As an atheist and a socialist, I do think we must be very circumspect about playing around with people's lives:

* people are precious (what on earth would socialism look like without people, in all their variety and foibles ?)

* and we each get only one life, with nothing before and nothing after. There are no gods, not even one, and never have been.

Frankly, I am appalled at a sort of death-oriented ideology which is being promoted, implicitly passed off as 'Left', which devalues life, people and the future. A sort of Goth Left, I suppose. Surely, socialism or the Left should be life-affirming, people-affirming, future-oriented ?

Oh well, back to your cave, Rip Van Winkle.

Foxy you ask

'Why are you not content to let a person die
in peace and serenity when they are in great
pain, have lost their functional and mental
independence and are only being kept alive
by artificial means? Why do you think it
just that doctors pursue a vigorous therapy
that would benefit no one except their own
satisfaction in twarting death, regardless
of the consequences?'

I did not know I did support the above. I actually think anybody should be able to reject being kept alive by medical means. I also think we should relieve the pain and suffering of people as much as possible. Why is it that those who support euthanasia are so quick to be self righteous and demonizes anyone opposed to it. Certainly many in Holland has lost their life involuntarily due to 'voluntary euthanasia.

Talking about a person's right to die is different than talking about a doctors right to kill. Again look at the dishonesty of arguemnets of those argueing for killing the unborn have used over the years. You know as well as I do it is now about 'rights' not compassion or decency.

I said before I have no problem with 'voluntary' euthanasia but the track record of these social reformers shows that when it comes to life and death they can't be trusted. I smell another death industry in the air. The killing of babies is disgusting enough.

How do you feel about capital punishment?

For certain crimes yes.

Hey! Rip van winle and company.

Yes I do agree that this topic has been run over to the point of unretreivable road kill, but there's still little problem with voluntary euthanasia.

When in a coma or brain dead etc, I mean, voluntary euthanasia as I understand it, would be a very neat trick.

Can any-one please demonstrate how this is done. lol, I cant wait for this one.

TTM>

I would have thought that this example was a fly in YOUR ointment, TTM, where voluntary euthanasia was clearly out of the question.

Some problems don't have solutions, TTM, at least not neat and tidy ones.

But isn't it intriguing how often discussions about 'voluntary euthanasia' slide, ever so compassionately and with great regard to quality of life, into how society needs to find ways to ease the departure of Alzheimer's patients, people in vegetative states, and people in other situations in which 'VE' should be clearly ruled out. Yes, it is inconvenient for those people to be taking up space, using up taxpayers' dollars, requiring staff and resources - what do we do with such useless people ?

In one of Arthur Upfield's 'Bony' novels ('The New Shoe, 1951, p. 98) an old bloke complains:

"The younger generation think only of money.... Stay in the country and carry on when their fathers want to let go ? No. Country life is no good for them. Let the old man die quickly. They want the cash. Never a thought to give in return.... "

So there's nothing much new under the sun :)

Dear runner,

My apologies to you, and Thank You for
explaining your position on this topic.
You're a gentleman!

Dear Loudmouth,

I recently watched a close family friend die.
They suffered dreadfully and it took several
years - with no dignity or peace and it was
agonising to watch. He pleaded for the right
to die, it was his wish, and it was very heart-wrenching
to his family that they were unable to give him
the peaceful death that he wanted.

Mind you one thing that never occurred to me to ask
was whether he or his family members were socialists
or Lefties? Although, as far as I know their family
like myself, are Catholic - although I guess they
could still be socialists - couldn't they?

"one of Arthur Upfield's 'Bony' novels ('The New Shoe, 1951, p. 98) an old bloke complains:

"The younger generation think only of money.... Stay in the country and carry on when their fathers want to let go ? No. Country life is no good for them. Let the old man die quickly. They want the cash. Never a thought to give in return.... "
..and your quite right, lucky for me our family line lives until our 80,s and 90, with all our marbles I might add, and I see where your going with this. smile.

But let me give you this thought of the future.

Lets do some maths, shall we. Now population 6.6 billion + people living longer + 9.2 billion in 2050 + no infrastructure for the masses + the greedy bumping off the patients for what ever reasons = as I see the sums, one big sh@tfull mess.

The next question is........I think bring on euthanasia before I see any of it. SMILE.

Now come to think of it, Iam feeling a little nervous. Maybe its not such a good idea after all.

But what ever happens Joe, Iam sure it will be done in the best interests of who's ever got the biggest advantage to make off the dead, and you know human nature as well as I do.

(Good luck In the future, I think we are going to need it:)

TTM

Dear TTM,

I've got news for you...

Euthanasia is already being practiced in some Aged
care facilities and some hospitals - where
certain doctors choose NOT to prolong death.
It's not regulated or advertised. It's done quietly!

And have no fear,
with it being made legal - it doesn't mean that
everyone will bump off old people.
(Making Divorce legal - didn't make everyone
want to go out and get one - or cause marriage
break-ups). It means that safeguards will be
put in place, it will involve proper procedures,
and it will definitely be regulated - which to me
seems much better than the system we have currently
in place. I'd rather have this regulated than not -
where unscrupulous people can manipulate things.
And, inevitably it will happen, (just like the
Republic), it's simply a question of when.
Because it's about time that a small minority stops
dictating to the majority - who want it - that's
not democracy.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote that it's not democracy when a minority dictates to a majority. I think democracy is more than the will of the majority. Democracy contains the idea that there are certain human rights that should not be ignored even though the majority would ignore them.

Probably all of us on this list agree on the desirability of free speech without censorship. If a majority were for censorship it would be undemocratic to bring it in even if a majority were for it.

I am for allowing abortion and making voluntary euthanasia legal.

However, right and wrong are not decided by a majority vote.

There are those who feel both abortion and legalising voluntary euthanasia are morally wrong. They do not want a majority vote to decide it.

I sympathise with them as I feel the death penalty is morally wrong and don't want a majority vote to decide it. runner made a good point on that issue.

We all don't have the same view as to what is morally right and wrong. That is one reason we are arguing and putting the matter to a majority vote does not decide what is right.

Loudmouth- for incapability to speak, I would consider an expressed will with a witness prior to incapacitation (in the vein of a more formalized 'do not revive' label).

I feel uncomfortable about the determination 'quality of life'. Who determines this?

Some are stoic about conditions others would consider appalling. The former often make sense of their life, no matter how grim it seems to others.

Then there is the issue of economics. If one has the wherewithall to have carers ... and another in the same position is on a low economic level ... ? Is there going to be a level playing field?

Also there is the issue of children born with serious defects, but who are actually capable of enjoying life.

My mother had a morbid horror of any sort of personal disfigurement.

In her late 70's she had a stroke, then a leg amputated. In her mid 80's, she suffered her second stroke which left her paralized, she heard the doctor state she wouldn't last the night. She managed to relay to me later that on hearing this she was determined to live. At the time, if the the doctors had asked me about resuscitation, and knowing her 'beliefs', I would have thought it kinder to let her die. However, I would have been wrong, very wrong.

It really is up to the individual to decide. And there is no certainty of how the individual might evaluate any situation, until they are confronting it.

"It really is up to the individual to decide. And there is no certainty of how the individual might evaluate any situation, until they are confronting it".

I think that's exactly it Danielle. But we want that right to decide. We are not talking about unconsenting people being bumped off. That's murder, and any doctor who engaged in such a practice, say murdering a disabled baby as has been cited as happening in Holland, should be charged.

I don't know if I would ever want to access euthanasia. But if things got to be intolerable for me when I was dying, I'd like the option of ducking out of the worst of it. If I was unconscious having expressed this to my family, I'd like my family to do the right thing by me and themselves and let me going quickly.

All the friends who I have known who have died and some who now have conditions that are probably going to get them sooner than later have been fiesty, opininated, and very dis-inclined to take prisoners when someone intrudes on them.

It rather brings a smile to my face to imagine their reaction if when having decided on whatever course of action in their last days, either asking for euthanasia or not, that someone would rock into their hospital room and try to moralise at them either way. Our would be moral saviour would have been verbally flayed even if it took my mate's last breath. So if you don't want to access euthanasia, then don't. But don't try and put barriers in the way of those of us who might.

"I feel uncomfortable about the determination 'quality of life'. Who determines this?"
The person demanding to die.

Add to that, requirement of disability with no prospects of imminent full recovery, before the doctor is allowed to kill them.

Dear David F.,

The point that I was trying to make with
my reference to Democracy was that a
tolerance of criticism and of dissenting
opinions is fundamental to Democracy. Laws
should not be passed simply because it is
the wish of a small minority in parliament.
Everyone is entitled to their private points
of view - but they are not entitled to impose
them on others.

Governing parties must resist
the temptation to equate their own policies
with the national good, or they will tend
to regard opposition as disloyal or even
treasonable.

Of course I agree with you that democracies
must avoid the danger to the "tyranny of
the majority." It is important that government
should recognize the grievances of minorities.
However, a democracy also requires its citizens
to make informed choices.
That's why a debate on the subject of
Euthanasia is vital - and all aspects should
be laid on the table. Citizens need access to
the information they need to make their choices.

And the right to die - should be left to the individual
to make. It should be a matter of individual choice
in this 21st century.

Dear TTM,

I've got news for you...

Euthanasia is already being practiced in some Aged
care facilities and some hospitals - where
certain doctors choose NOT to prolong death.
It's not regulated or advertised. It's done quietly!

Oh gezzz foxy! You have just shot that one in the head. Now if I wanted to die by slipping the doctor a tenner, thanks! Now the friggin cats out of the bag! Smile.

And not only that, every nurse and age care worker will be running out back to burn all the evidence.

God! its hard at the top.

Loudmouth- for incapability to speak, I would consider an expressed will with a witness prior to incapacitation (in the vein of a more formalized 'do not revive' label).
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:36:26 AM

'do not revive' label). What the hell are we talking about here?

Look. seriously, Steven Hawkings device will work like a champion.

Just in on the news desk, USA Has had an increase in parental deaths due to mums and dads living too long. Your right Joe! That book of yours in going to come in handy.

TTM>

Dear TTM,

Love your sense of humour!

Foxy! Love your balance and great sence of judgment.
It will always be treasured
and as time goes by
will all be as well
as we think, or can
the world be as one?

We will see.

Good luck

TT

Dear Foxy,

I am totally opposed to female genital mutilation and will attempt to impose that view on others no matter how much they feel they have a right to cut up little girls or how great is the majority that feels they should have that right.

Would you find FGM acceptable if 98% of the people thought it was? I don't think you would. If I were part of a small minority that could impose prohibition of FGM I would force my will on a majority for it if I could.

FYI I belong to Exit International and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Queensland, but I understand that those who oppose me feel they are as much in the right as I feel I am.

Thanks, TTM, you've made my mind up for me - I'm totally opposed now to VE, since it is obviously nothing more than a way for Gen X and Y to knock off their Baby-Boomer parents and grandparents, and to fast-track the inheritance of their property.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

And thanks for demonstrating what a weird sense of humour sociopaths have.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I belong to Voluntary Euthanasia of Queensland. To the best of my knowledge all of our membership is quite old. Some of us are suffering from various unpleasant diseases. I am one of the healthy ones but will be 85 next month. We will inherit nobody's property as our relatives who have property are generally much younger than us. What unites us is the prospect of suffering various unpleasant terminal diseases and not being able to end it at our own time and choosing.

In the shopping centre mall I was approached by a young man collecting for the Heart Fund. He asked me, "Did you know that heart disease is our number one killer?" I asked him, "What do you think should be our number one killer?" A massive heart attack seems much more desirable than a killer disease that would have us lose control of our bowels, mind, other facilities and condemn us to a lingering and painful end.

Oh joe! grow up. The sence of humor was for the very sad subject that it is, and as for the people that's in this situation, its no laughing matter. Gen Y for your information could give a rats about gen X and your penny's in your jar.

"And thanks for demonstrating what a weird sense of humour sociopaths have.
LOL. Yes Joe, everyone's out to get you.

When its time for me to go, they can have all Ive got before I become a dried up old fool.
You cant take it with you. But better still! Why not let the system have it all and then I can become the hypocrite and let the government or what ever faction drain all my life savings, then I can say to what ever imaginational deity, that my life was well served.

Yeah right!

Or give it to a church for that front row sit to the after life.

I can see them rubbing their hands right now.

I don't know what planet your on, but all the best in what ever you do.

Smile.

TTM

TTM,

I'll get back to you when you have something sensible to say :)

Meanwhile, thanks for making my mind up for me.

Joe

This is why I insist that the debate has long since finished;

Most people clearly support the policy in principle to some extent, with their only opposition being a reasoned conservative demand that we ensure there are no loopholes for abuse or misconduct.

And even THEN we've already set enough basic parameters that we could practically mail a printout of this thread to parliament as a blueprint to pass to legal analysts.

I think beyond a first requirement of specific demand from the patient only, and possibly a secondary demand of long-term disability (which, to clarify again means that unless the patient ASKS, it's never even an option- but that patient would need to be suffering a disability that has no prospects of an imminent recovery, or at least make a convincing reason to the doctors why he/she should die before they will proceed)- would satisfy the basics in most cases.

And the further implications of a 'death will' in prior case to being incapacitated beyond communication.

Dear David F.,

We seem to be in agreement.

I recognise the right of people to have
different views to mine on the subject.
What I don't recognise is governments
being in the business of censoring a
position that doesn't agree with their views.

The question of Euthanasia should be open to
public debate, and not censored. And the
question should be put to a Referendum -
allowing the country to decide.

Euthanasia should be a matter of individual choice.

Foxy,

The whole point is: what the hell do you mean by 'euthanasia' ?! If you mean 'suicide', then provided people who are depressed, etc., have proper counselling, and still want to make such a decision, then okay.

But surely you can understand, and King Hazza too, that when we involve a second or third person, we are in very different territory - we have moved from definite and absolute autonomy to a complete breach in autonomy. This may be assuaged by personal wills written when a person is able to do so, but even then, we all change our views and opinions and preferences and if a will is taken literally, it may be held against a person who belatedly changes his/her mind once he or she is no longer able to sign anything or, supposing he/she had had a stroke, can't even indicate a change of mind coherently (cf. Emile Zola's Therese Raquin). Very dicey !

Then we move one further step: we put it all in the hands of a medical practitioner or some sort of Special Fareweller.

Then, a final step: we have the Deep Greens who believe all humans should be obliterated from Mother Earth, TTM.

There is no heaven, folks, and there never has been: this is the one and only life you will ever have. Please do not give it away lightly, there are no second chances, no opportunities to 're-consider'.

Joe Lane

King Hazza, "This is why I insist that the debate has long since finished;
Most people clearly support the policy in principle to some extent, with their only opposition being a reasoned conservative demand that we ensure there are no loopholes for abuse or misconduct."

While I support the legalisation of euthanasia, I do not agree that the debate is anywhere near over, nor that those who might have concerns are driven solely by 'conservative' thinking. 'Conservative' being a slight employed OLO's progressive liberals against opinion they view as challenging theirs, of course.

Anyone who listened to the address to the National Press Club earlier this week by Michael O'Neill, CEO of National Seniors Australia, would not have missed his comment that around 75% of his members aged 50 years and above would vote against euthanasia through distrust and fear of government. Yet this is the section of the population that euthanasia would impact on most.

How can euthanasia be legalised where the people it seriously affects most of all are opposed and for good reasons?

Seniors are concerned that if available, euthanasia would give government excuse for limiting funding for much-needed services to the aged such as palliative care. From both the words and behaviour of political leaders, they are right in their belief. Mr Abbott has said not to trust government with euthanasia because funding other services could be withdrawn. His vowed strong action if elected against disability pensioners was a red flag for harsh policies against age pensioners and people on fixed incomes.

PM Julia Gillard not only sees no votes in the aged and opposed a desperately needed pension increase, but has now acted on that belief by no longer having a ministerial department exclusively for aged issues. The latter is a strange decision where government has flagged the ageing of the population as one of the most serious concerns of government and impacting on population numbers, taxation, health, you name it.

Contd..

Contd..

In fact, the intergenerational jealousy that is so often a distraction in debate in Australian politics comes directly from the most senior politicians of a succession of governments, back past Hawke.

Having compared 7.30 Report segments from 2008 (Aged care in crisis, Heather Ewart, 1 Oct 2008) and 2010 (Aged care under strain, Peter McCutcheon, 14 Sept 2010), I can only agree with Michael O'Neill and the recent Access Economics report (McCutcheon link refers) that the aged care system is tragically broken, beyond repair. Discrimination against the aged is widespread and far exceeds any other form of discrimination, yet there is no Commissioner devoted to it, yet Commissioners remain in such areas as sex and race, where the major outstanding issues have been death with long ago.

In employment, government has never looked like relinquishing its the dubious crown as being the long-standing leader in discrimination against the aged. Yet government will determine, administer and monitor euthanasia policy and decisions. Judging by some of the persistent awful findings of the government's own auditor concerning the treatment of the aged in nursing homes, euthanasia might be the preferable efficient and humane final solution for old and government alike.

In his address to the National Press Club, Mr O'Neill made a plea for government and society to overcome the discrimination and (I would add) the dislike and disrespect shown towards the old. The attitude of Australians towards their elders compares poorly with the kind respect shown by Aboriginals and the Japanese to take a couple of examples.

It is reasonable to ask why the Greens and others who are so outspoken in support of euthanasia are not similarly inclined to redress the obscene discrimination against the aged that is apparent through such incontrovertible evidence as long term unemployment numbers and a broken aged care system that is in danger of collapse?

Dear Loudmouth,

My apologies if things were not clear enough
from my posts.

You ask - What do I mean by Euthanasia?

From my understanding:

Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly
putting to death people who have incurable,
painful, diseases. It comes from the Greek
words for "good" and "death," and is
commonly called "mercy killing."
It occurs when incurably ill people ask a
doctor to put them to death.

Active euthanasia is illegal in almost all
countries as we know, and most religious
groups consider it suicide or murder, and
therefore immoral. Yet there are those who
argue (and I'm one) that is allows a person
to die with dignity instead of being kept
barely alive by artificial means.

Also as I've stated in a previous post,
an alternative to euthanasia is already being
practiced by the withholding of most types
of medical treatment. This practice is legal
and allows the patient to die naturally.
The problem with this is - it's not regulated
and there are no safeguards in place.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

Foxy,

Let me try to be a bit more specific: what are the limits of euthanasia ? What are its boundaries ? Suicide is one thing, murder another, but where in the grey area in between these two do we draw the line ? When is it NOT permitted ? In your view, when does 'euthanasia' (eu-, thanatos) end and murder begin ?

As a sort of atheist libertarian socialist, I'm fine with suicide. As a supporter of equal human rights, I totally oppose murder.

But it's the mushy bit in between suicide and murder, the hierarchy of possible situations, from providing morphine pumps (okay) to pillow over the face (not okay), that has me worried.

To continue on from what Cornflower was saying, far more funding should be given to palliative care, pain relief, counselling, domiciliary care, and so on, to minimise the 'need' (or more likely, the justification) for euthanasia, no matter how it is defined.

There are no gods. We get one life each, then nothing. Use it sparingly, but take it seriously.

Joe

Dear Joe, (Loudmouth),

If Euthanasia becomes legal in this country
safeguards shall be put in place,
and proper procedures will have to be followed,
and regulated. Just as with abortions, or any
other medical procedures that are performed today.

Making it legal will give terminally ill
people with incurable diseases
a choice to request a peaceful and dignified
death, rather than having their lives prolonged
by artificial means. However it will be up to a
panel of medical practitioners
to decide whether the request is granted. It also
doesn't mean that those who don't want to be given this
option have to have it. It will be a matter of individual
choice.

Foxy,

Thank you. So 'euthanasia' means, in the first instance, suicide ? Well, that's a start to delineating boundaries.

My understanding is that there are already legal principles in place in relation to people not "having their lives prolonged
by artificial means", i.e. switching off machines, and otherwise stopping treatment - NOTE that this is NOT the same as implementing treatment which would bring about death. So the right of people not to have "their lives prolonged by artificial means" is already in place, within the acceptable bounds (well, acceptable to most of us)of what might be covered by the term 'euthanasia'.

One grey area in law may be the writing of wills asking for some assistance to die in the distant future: how distant would surely excite the attention of the courts ? How could someone re-affirm their original intentions after they have lost the physical ability to re-sign such a document - this might also put the legal possibility of euthanasia into some doubt.

Okay, what might NOT be covered by the term ? Would you rule out deliberately bringing about the death of someone whose mental state precluded them from making any rational decision, i.e. dementia and Alzheimer's patients ? The killing of anyone who could not make their intentions known in any way ?

No, it's really not so simple, Foxy .......

Joe

King Hazza, "This is why I insist that the debate has long since finished;
Most people clearly support the policy in principle to some extent, with their only opposition being a reasoned conservative demand that we ensure there are no loopholes for abuse or misconduct."

And I also agree. Its time to set the wheels in motion and like The King
said, this debate has long finished.

Joe. With the information form all bodies of higher thought, its ready to severed and not a moment too soon.

Thanks.

TTM.

TTM,

Then I hope we won't hear any more references to Alzheimer's and any more sanctimonious bullsh!t about deep concern over 'quality of life' and 'dying with dignity', etc. So:

* Yes to suicide (including, say, self-adminstered morphine pumps), yes to wills signed within a period of a year or two before the plug is pulled, yes (with qualifications) to the pulling of plugs.

* No to murder, no to the killing of old people on economic grounds, no to the killing of the demented, no to the killing of people on the grounds of 'poor quality of life' and to 'let them die with dignity', etc.

Is this the sort of thing you mean about the debate being long since finished ? Are these the sort of boundaries around euthanasia that would satisfy you ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I have two mothers with Alzheimers
(my mother and my mother-in law).
They are not suffering pain or
discomfort. I look upon "mercy
killing," as something that's done
(under medical advice) as a last resort,
and only to alleviate the person's
pain and suffering. A person who is
dying anyway. That is not the case with
Alzheimers.

I'd also like to add - that any decision
that is made should be made with the
consultation of all family members - and
hopefully with the knowledge of what the
person themselves would want done. My
two mothers have made their choices quite
clear to us in their wills.

Each case is different of course, and each
difficult decision has to be made by the
people and family members involved. I can't
speak for anyone else's situation. And I would
not dream on imposing my views on anyone else.

Anyway, I don't quite frankly see the point in
discussing this matter with you any further.
For me at least this discussion has run its
course. You're entitled to your opinion,
as I am to mine.

Australia will decide eventually whether or not
it wants legislation on this matter passed or not.

TTM,

Then I hope we won't hear any more references to Alzheimer's and any more sanctimonious bullsh!t about deep concern over 'quality of life' and 'dying with dignity', etc. So:

* No to murder, no to the killing of old people on economic grounds, no to the killing of the demented, no to the killing of people on the grounds of 'poor quality of life' and to 'let them die with dignity', etc.

All I was doing was to try and cover all possibilities of the negatives and positives which human beings will exploit, and again, its the very sensitive nature that this all hinges on with all parties still in some instances, clarity has not been reached' the religious just for one.

I think where all big enough to put a package together that all will be happy with, and I hope sooner than later, because for some, its already too late.

All the best

TTM

Foxy,

So just to clarify: when you write

<<I look upon "mercy killing," as something that's done (under medical advice) as a last resort,and only to alleviate the person's pain and suffering. A person who is dying anyway.>>

are you talking about 'mercy' killing with or without the person's consent - 'under medical advice' of course, whatever that might mean in real-life ? 'Last resort' or not ? Funny how talk of 'last resort' imposes a sort of urgency on the killing process. It's a bit like the way that talking of 'dying with dignity' and 'quality of life' also tarts up killing.

Can we assume the person's consent, 100 % ? i.e. nobody else making judgments about killing somebody 'to alleviate the person's pain and suffering' ?

I'm intrigued about your throw-away proviso: 'a person who is dying anyway.' We all are, Foxy: can you see how this could be stretched to conceivably include any of us?

Or are you subtly introducing an age-limit on how much life each of us should be limited to ?

You wouldn't be a Green supporter by any chance ? Is there a strand of Green ideology that depicts humans as excrescences which should be 'minimised' ? Is there also a move amongst those Greens to self-sterilise ? Or is it only the rest of us, the unenlightened, who are excrescences ? I letterboxed and handed out electoral material for the Greens for about ten years: unless they clarify this issue fully, that will be the end of that. I'm already p!ssed off at their Indigenous policies.

Or are you a Christian or Muslim - do you believe that death doesn't matter much, you'll go straight to heaven anyway ? Sorry mate, there's no heaven, no after-life: this is all we are going to get, make the best of it - and let others do so too.

Joe

Returning to the elephant in the room - the active and widespread discrimination against the aged that is an outstanding feature of our culture - what is there to prevent further discrimination and prejudicial treatment, such as funds being withdrawn from hospitals and aged care, if euthanasia is made available?

The overwhelming majority of seniors who are opposed to euthanasia because they don't trust government and the motivations of the Greens, have good cause to be worried. Since when did the Greens' leader Bob Brown, or any of the other Greens who polish the plush leather seats in the Senate, ever demonstrate any interest in improving aged care?

Rhetoric is one thing but behaviour is another. None of the 'checks and balances' in the euthanasia law proposed by the Greens mean squat in a culture where seniors are routinely blamed in Australia's State and federal parliaments (and without one word being said in their defence) for past and present failures in planning and blown budgets.

What about as a simple first step in gaining credibility for their euthanasia initiative that the Greens show similar leadership in dealing with the rogue elephant that is discrimination against the aged? We hear a lot about other forms of discrimination, most of which has been resolved, but there is a stony silence concerning the obvious stereotyping and prejudice against the aged and certainly no mention of ever devoting an equality commissioner to it.

Seniors are entitled to ask why euthanasia is urgent, but fixing the broken aged care system is not. They are also entitled to ask why nothing is done about discrimination against the aged which is the most common and destructive form of discrimination in Australia, by a country mile.

Hell would freeze over before the Greens would ever propose a Commissioner for the Aged.

It would be wrong though to suppose that the Greens have not been thinking of the old, because they have proposed new taxes for their estates. Perhaps the aged need their positions 're-adjusted' through the positive affirmative action of euthanasia and death duties. Soylent Green, anyone?

Dear Joe,

Kindly re-read my previous posts
I've already answered your questions.

As for my religion - that Sir, is frankly
none of your business.

But because I've been raised to be polite,
and it's not a secret anyway because I
specified my religion in earlier posts I shall
let you know that I am a Catholic, a young
happily married female, a librarian by profession,
who was raised in a Liberal voting family.
As for my own political inclinations - they vary,
although I have to admit that I have never voted
for the Greens - for a variety of reasons.

By the way, labelling people doesn't achieve
anything constructive, neither does making
assumptions about them through a narrow lens, or
trying to fit them into one of your chosen
"categories." I haven't done that to you,
I expect the same courtesy in return.

Loudmouth;
"* Yes to suicide (including, say, self-adminstered morphine pumps), yes to wills signed within a period of a year or two before the plug is pulled, yes (with qualifications) to the pulling of plugs.

* No to murder, no to the killing of old people on economic grounds, no to the killing of the demented, no to the killing of people on the grounds of 'poor quality of life' and to 'let them die with dignity', etc."

.
Pretty much- we simply extend this new right on the grounds that the motion to euthanize comes ONLY from the patient in some.
Hence why the discussion is finished- because such discussions frequently boil down to majority agreement to this general concept with only an elaboration of precise legal parameters to ensure this is the case (eg witnesses to request, assessments by third parties depending on how much different individuals regard as necessary for transparency vs the probability that it imposes obstacles on the patient.

My stance of Euthanasia is that it is simply a human right.

Cornflower,

<<Seniors are entitled to ask why euthanasia is urgent, but fixing the broken aged care system is not. They are also entitled to ask why nothing is done about discrimination against the aged which is the most common and destructive form of discrimination in Australia, by a country mile.>>

Yes, you're spot-on ! Why the faux compassion about 'quality of life' and 'dignity' but so little said about better palliative care and pain relief ?

Foxy,

Sorry, I meant nothing personal, I was just curious. So you do believe that there is an after-life ? I don't: this earthly life is all we 'get', in my view.

King Hazza,

But that's exactly the point ! The most difficult issues are precisely those that fall in between suicide and murder. Otherwise don't call it 'euthanasia' - call it what it is: suicide. i.e. an act of an individual, involving no other person whatsoever. End of story. Legalise suicide.

I think we are now starting to get somewhere :)

Joe

Actually Joe, Euthanasia is a subject viewed in all manner of ways by both Christians and Athiests ie [individual/personal viewpoints] as opposed to lumping in Christians with a solid view that if they believe in after life or God they will not treat life here as precious. Factually wrong for obvious reasons.

I daresay most people [whether Athiests or Christians] view this life more seriously worrying themselves sick about the future of their children and the heartache our kids and family will endure, when we die. Most people do not wish to say goodbye to family and/or leave all that their conscious minds have known regardless of thoughts or beliefs in afterlife Joe. A natural selfish emotion. Few people wish to join another world given they believe in God and/or Jesus Christ.

When or if my pain threshold becomes too much, I will be honest, regardless of trying to follow as many Commandments as able, I will not hesitate in requesting the last top up of morphine or whatever is available in the near future to end my suffering and that of my children or spouse seeing me in prolonged pain for a year or two.

I will ensure that I, my children or a spouse/close friend inform the nursing staff to increase the morphine at whatever levels it takes to finish my organs off.

At the end of the day no-one wishes to be suffering from long term chronic unbearable pain [as my father in law told me when dying of stomach cancer] "its as if a knife is being stabbed through my intestines and stomach all day a hundred times over".

We nursed him up to two weeks prior to dying [he begged for hospital knowing that the morphine would be given in greater amounts] to ensure he was not suffering from the degree of pain felt at home.

Indeed Loudmouth- though I imagine euthanasia would actually be an easier field to differentiate from murder due to the need for clear legal parameters of records of consent by the deceased, unlike, say, an 'accidental' death or a 'heart attack in the hospital bed'.

Even more so if euthanasia practice was strictly limited to a stand-alone license that a medical practitioner needed to apply for, instead of being automatically assumed part of the job of your normal doctor or nurse.

WAU,

(1) I have no objection to self-administered pain relief, like a morphine pump, even if everyone knows that a hefty dose will slow down body functions, breathing ,heart-beat, etc., and lead to death.

(2) If your father-in-law had been able to express the desire clearly and unambiguously for extra, extra, extra doses of morphine from hospital staff, this should be what legalised euthanasia should cover - ideally, self-administered.

Surely pain relief should be of primary concern in making dying patients comfortable ? And if pain cannot be relieved, then allow the patient control over the process of providing a means whereby he/she could at least gain the peace of unconsciousness, via a morphine pump, even if everybody knows that it will be the end. When my wife died two years ago of liver cancer, she did not complain about pain levels except to say that she couldn't get any sleep, but by then, her liver and kidneys had completely failed, and we all knew that even a small amount of morphine would take her, which it did, peacefully 24 hours after it was administered. Three weeks from go to whoa doesn't really give you time to say goodbye, and perhaps I'm biased against too hasty VE for that reason. But frankly, the issue would have been inconceivable in her case.

Yes, your Majesty, AS LONG AS clear legal parameters were set, the patient's intentions were clear, and the process was supervised appropriately, I would support VE, with the proviso that self-administration was ALWAYS to be preferred where possible, to preserve the patient's autonomy as much as possible.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Now it's my turn to apologise to you.
I misjudged you and I should have paid
closer attention to what you were actually
saying. It seems that we're on the same
wave length afterall. I also have many
reservations as you do on this subject.

Anyway, please accept both my apology and
my deepest sympathy at the death of your wife.
I wish you an easier journey
along your life's path.

Nicola.

Thank you, Nicola. Death is so final, so irreversible - none of us is just an atomised individual, unattached to others. We leave a hole which sometimes can't be filled: our deaths have sometimes devastating impacts on the ones we leave behind, which is why I'm so concerned that taking a life, even one's own life, should be the last, last, last resort. It's not just some academic or intellectual exercise, is it ?

All the best :)

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I fully agree with you. It should be used
only as a last, last, resort.

I feel also that if society decided to accept
euthanasia, it should draw up legislation
with enough administrative safeguards to prevent
abuse.

I realize that it won't be easy, and it might not
satisfy many people, but it might satisfy others.
So, if a "safe" system of dispensing euthanasia
can be written into the law, as most of us seem to
believe it should, it seems up to the Parliamentarians
- the law makers - to ensure that it is.

At the moment our representatives do not hear pro-
euthanasia crowds beating down the gates and so they
do nothing. Governments are generally reluctant to
push any controversial legislation before the Parliament
of any nature unless there is a strong public demand
for it, or unless there is any great public benefit from
it.

What would embolden the MPs to cater to that approving but
almost mute majority would be the support of the
Australian Medical Association. That support is also
important because of the role doctors would inevitably
have to play if active euthanasia became accepted.

However, of course the AMA's position is that for a doctor
to help someone kill themself, goes against what the
Medical Profession is all about. The basic duty of a doctor
is to preserve life, not to end it, even though doctors
sometimes will approve the turning off life-support systems
of irreversably and terminally ill patients. This already
happens, but for even this small step to be legalised,
many people feel would create a "legal minefield"
sure to blow up doctors.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops with this
debate in Parliament.

Thanks again for for being
so open and honest.

Take care.

Thank you, Nicola,

You have a good heart.

Joe