Don't be so defensive, Cornflower.

>>It is disingenuous of you to insist there is no difference between the statement I made and what you claimed I said<<

I'm simply interested in one thing.

Is there, or is there not, a survey whose results show that 75% of the several hundred thousand members of National Seniors are opposed to voluntary euthanasia?

The reason I am interested is that the most publicised statistic is that 80% are in favour.

http://www.euthanasia.cc/97-1dvd.html

So, do you have a source, or not?

It is a very simple question.

David G and others, can we talk about how 'the group' influences the choices of individuals, even those individuals that are opposed to the concept of euthanasia, or other difficult legislative proposals, for that matter?

Can we talk about how concepts slide and drift, as technological changes allows new ideas to be applied to legislation?

That new circumstances challenge older legislation is just part and parcel of lawmakinig, as with the now mainstream screening of mothers for Down Syndrome children, so that affected foetuses can be aborted just before the 20-week mark.

How do these new uses of older legislation affect the community, and the individuals making the 'choices' expected of them?

Okay, can we start at the other end and agree on what is NOT permissible ? This is my preference list, in order of permissibility:

1. Healthy people, full of life, should not be killed.

2. Elderly people, in reasonable health, should not be killed.

3. Elderly people in poor health, who expressly indicate that they do NOT want to be killed, should not be killed.

4. Elderly people who are dying, and who indicate that they do NOT want to be killed, should not be killed.

5. Dying people who are insensate, e.g. with dementia or Alzheimer's, who have left no Will, should not be killed.

6. Dying people, who are paralysed and unable to indicate either way whether they wish to live or die, but are in great pain, should not be killed but should be provided with as much pain relief as is required, even if it may hasten their death.

7. People who have indicated, through a Will, that they wish to die, can be euthanased, i.e. by the supervised actions of a Second Party, a doctor or nurse.

8. People who have indicated that they wish to die and who are capable of carrying out their own euthanasia, should be allowed to do so, i.e. by their own hand, but this should not directly involve any other person.

9. People should, after appropriate counselling, be allowed to commit suicide.

It's probably a lot more complicated than that, but I'm sure that everyone contributing to this thread has his or her own definition of what constitutes euthanasia. I'm comfortable with 7, 8 and 9, but there are inferences and veiled hints from some contributors about other situations - incredibly compassionate and tearful support for option 6, and some support on economic grounds for 5, and even for 3 and 4.

In my view, options 8 and 9 constitute suicide, and only option 7 could be called euthanasia.

Is this getting too specific ? Where is YOUR limit ?

Joe

Actually Loudmouth those guidelines are very good;

Personally, my law;

1- a euthanization can ONLY be called into action by the patient who intends to be euthanized him/herself (be it directly or in will). So any form of unwilling killing will be treated as murder and are thus the obvious basis of the laws (1-5). In lacking of these, the law MUST er on the side of prolonged life and palative care.

2- The euthanizer MUST explicitly instruct the patient in the procedure and must ask for permission again before setting it up, and the third time to clarify that person's wishes to push the button (if that person is physically incapable of doing it themselves).
(this is to prevent somebody from legally summoning a euthanizer when they were merely suffering a brief day-long state of fever or drug side-effects). Also, that patient must not have any trace of drugs that may induce such emotions that are NOT vital to their health with no alternatives.

3- A patient must be suffering a long-term ailment, be terminally-ill or over pension age to qualify.

4- A person's autonomy is to be fully respected, even if mentally disabled. On top of (2), additional impartial witnesses of medical or possibly legal nature must be present to verify will to die if their sense of judgement is questioned.

5- Laws 6-7-8 I agree with completely, (obviously having expressed them previously myself in the past).

Oops - at 3 and 4, I should have specified the other way around - that people who did NOT express a desire to desire, quite explicitly, were not to be killed. People shouldn't have to express a desire NOT to die - that is precisely what should be taken for granted, that life should continue to be recognised as a right.

Clearly, the controversy may rage over whether 6 and/or 7 constitute euthanasia. At a rough guess, I would assume that 1 - 5 would not do so, in most people's minds ? And 8 and 9 would constitute suicide, and therefore not euthanasia, strictly speaking ?

Of course, there may be some very Dark Greens who would support even 1 and 2, humans being worthless excescences despoiling the Earth Mother. I wouldn't mind betting that there is a debate going on behind the scenes within the Greens about where the limits of euthanasia are :)

Joe

Loudmouth, "I wouldn't mind betting that there is a debate going on behind the scenes within the Greens about where the limits of euthanasia are :)"

Heh, heh, that might very well be the case, because I have suggested in previous posts, there certainly doesn't appear to be any debate about fixing the broken aged care system that has been that way for years.

Nor is there any interest in tackling, or even acknowledging, the dismissive attitudes and disgraceful discrimination against seniors that have become features and fixtures of our culture.

Speaking of dyed in the wool dark Green supporters...
Pericles, "So, do you have a source, or not?"

Still pretending you are unaware of the source and the link already given to you? Again, if suits you to pretend ignorance, so be it. Again, the record is here for all to see.

As noted previously, Michael O'Neill's address to the National Press Club was shown on the television and consequently I don't have a personal video copy to hand out, but a transcript or DVD is available to anyone from the NPC for a small fee (link given earlier). That is up to you but again, it is childish of you Pericles, to pretend it isn't there by linking to the promotional material on the NPC site as you have done.