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