"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."

I hope that is clear in my policy also.

Euthanasia has to be REQUESTED by the patient for it to even be on the table, or else the practitioner simply does not pay a visit. Simple as that.
It would be illegal to summon a euthanizer or for a doctor with such a license to offer it, and ask the patient if they're up on the offer. The patient has to actually summon them.

King Hazza,

Okay, with the proviso that if the person was not capable of carrying out the actions required, then with witnesses being present and an oral statement clearly expressing the person's wishes, the euthanasia could go ahead - and only if the person was in intense pain, and that all possible pain relief had been made available. After all, we're talking about taking someone's life here, it's not like buying a secondhand car.

If the person WAS capable of carrying out the actions required, and still wanted to proceed after obligatory counselling then no other person should be involved.

i.e. euthanasia ONLY in situations of clear intent, intense unrelievable pain AND inability to carry out the required actions.

For the record, I would still prefer that all possible alternatives to dying prematurely, or being killed, were explored.

Joe

im/pretty-much over the topic/so add my final thoughts

police should be involved/..asp
dna identification of all parties concerned/should be collected

[witness statements/heirs/docters..must all be recorded]
patient must be aware...and reveal who said what

full declaration of all medicines be noted
and certified by collection of hair-sample's/nail clippings..
body fluids/drug samples

full autopsy must be done
[double blind...ie non involved 3 rd party]

it must be treated as a potential crime-scene
at all stages

and a high level of certainty...
must be ascribed to retaining..all the evidence/

and certain id..of all parties-concerned..[verifyable by dna]
signed witness statements/witnessed and certified..[via dna..full id]

patient must have knowledge of after-life

know of lifes continuance
and the need/..there..to balance past actions
by doing acts of repentance/

but also the importance accorded to grace/mercy/fairnes

ALL PARTIES/concerned..must know/disclose....all the facts
[spirituial as well as physical/medical]

[and all-possabilities...
and posable repercussions/legal/moral]

it is not to..become a beurocratic maze
neither to/be taken lightly

there must be no..saving of cost..aspect..in any consideration
[ie...it must-not/be the cheap-option]

docters must definitivly..state/certify..validaTE..the medical facts
then have them certified and confirmed..fully disclosed

and eventually verfied by the dna/evidence-samples/autopcy

nothing can be said to/be failsafe
and human.error..becomes more that casual-error]

[not taken lightly..nor for..oops i was wrong

ie..[have consequences..
morally spiritually/physiclly]

ok thats..the line of my thinking

julia...your paid to represent firstly..the..poor /oppressed/sick/maimed..
to be the care-giver..of the common wealth...on gods behalf

regardless of your beliefs..
your only a young-child...[spiritually...
and it seems..a novice politically..

your not..serving special intrests..but the common/intrests

being by..acting as trustee..over the common trust

[the true wealth...the people...their cultures..entitlements
[as enjoined mortal-heirs,sic,]..of the eternal omnipotesent good..[god]

and their god..given estates...and various occupations/needs/wants/hopes and dreams

god really is watching you..
but/not..to judge you

only that you serve the common-weal
by serving..the common good

serving collectivly..
by protecting the..right's..of..each..individually

It would appear that you don't, Cornflower.

>>So, do you have a source, or not? It is a very simple question.<<

If you had, it would be the easiest thing in the world to point to it. Instead, all we get is obfuscation.

>>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<<

Your first link was to the "transcripts" page of the NPC. Presumably you have already downloaded a transcript, so you are in a perfect position to quote from it. So long as you stick to the "fair use" guidelines, you won't have a problem with copyright.

Your second link was to the 7.30 report. No mention of euthanasia. No mention of a survey. What was the purpose of providing the link, if it contained no useful information?

It surely would be of substantial, and extremely newsworthy, interest to show how there are two conflicting statistics in favour of euthanasia. One that reflects the views of the general public, of all ages, and one that makes clear tha attitude of the elderly, who by definition are most affected.

Sadly, I am beginning to suspect that you were mistaken about the existence of the survey, and simply lack the courage to admit it.

Actually Loudmouth I feel that's for the patient to decide;
In other words, the requirements for euthanasia should be;

1- the patient asks to be euthanized, with witnesses to verify true intent, either direct-verbally- or otherwise in a will if rendered incapable

2- The patient must be suffering a long term illness/disability with no immediate prospects of recovery, is very old, terminally ill, or is in great pain, and free of mind-altering drugs that are NOT necessary for prolonged life or symptom relief.

Otherwise, I'd just respect their wishes. I see no reason why a person in such a state should have to go through an obstacle course, when killing ones self is not a decision one ever takes lightly after all, (unless drugged).

Your Majesty,

Forgive me but I do think that in your option (1), if a person is capable of carrying out the actions themselves, then the involvement of anybody else should not be allowed or sanctioned: the principle of self-determination and autonomy would be breached otherwise. Of course, this is where we can get into very ambiguous territory, once a (capable) person has died and other (capable) people are present - how do you tell, one way or the other, that they have not been killed by someone else, their 'helper' ?

Which is why even suicide would have to have all sorts of conditions around it: no-one else within cooee of the means of death, nobody else holding the pill-bottle or whatever, nobody else being present. Otherwise, how would the legal system distinguish between suicide and the involvement of another person, and between that involvement and murder ? Do we video the moment ? So the best contribution that a suicider can make to their friends' and relations' well-being is to carry out their decision alone.

And the best contribution their friends and relations can make is to provide on-going love and support, enough to get them to change their minds. Every human being is precious, every life is precious, and we get only one of them, and that's it.

Joe