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.