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?