just when i think/..to have said my final say..in the issue..
[i get further/..guidence]

timming is everything...lol

but to quote..<<For all/these..things
those who/are responsible..must-be..brought to..judgment...>>and/or reward..

<<true/“Guilt..must/be righteously punished,>>of equal measure

<<while the...excess/of pain..which the victim..has endured/
must receive..its legitimate compensation...>>

<<With the/punishment..we..have nothing to do,..
<<the/natural-law of this life..is fully adequate to that,..
<<and every guilty soul..will reap the..just*/harvest..of the seed he/has sown.

<<It is/that..>>that<<we/may..take part..in the compensation/..that we are..here.>>...

extracted from..through the mists..
http://www.jhardaker.plus.com/pdf/Through%20the%20Mists.pdf

continues..

<<Justice demands/that..an instant*liberation..shall-be given..
<<from those bonds..and life/must-be*..lavished upon the sufferers..
<<until we have helped to/build up..and invigorate their/souls,..then each-one..shall reach the full-development..for which/it-was..design[ed]..and for which/..it wept..and struggled,..but was..<<or may/have-been<<..prevented..by action of oppressors.”>>

<,“But where/do-we..find mercy and forgiveness..
in the administration/of..such inexorable/justice?”..I asked.>>

“Every attribute of/God..has its legitimate-sphere of operation,”..he replied,

<<“and the/inviolate-maintenance..of each/in its appointed order..is essential to the continuance of the/almighty..and all-wise perfection..of our Father,..but it is impossible for any one of these..to/usurp..the jurisdiction/of..another.>>

<<..Suppose,..for a moment,..that mercy was allowed to..withstand justice
and prevail..in any single instance;..the immediate result would/be..an/injustice;>>

<<since to/show mercy..to the offender..
would be an injustice to/the offended,..unless,in turn,..you show him..mercy too.>>

<<Carry this/to-its logical sequence ..and you will be/compelled..to abolish justice in favour of mercy,..in which case..punishment and retribution..would become..an impossibility;..law..would be a dead-letter,..

and sin,..freed from fear or/restraint,..would revel..in its license.>>end/quote

now licence...[mean's..permission..to do that otherwise..unlawfull]

i hesitate to give anyone...licence to kill

by the same licence..
no one..has the right..to allow suffering

[especially them/those..who have taken oath/..and
gained licence..to heal]

to you..having/been..given..so little..
be gratefull...

None of us operate in a vacuum, and the simple fact that lobbyists are working to pressure government is proof in itself that community exists, and that community values are important.
Therefore, those opposing formalising euthanasia legislation cannot be summarily dismissed as hopelessly uninformed busybodies.

Community values influence, profoundly, the choices that are set before us in the first place.
For each of my own three pregnancies, I have been recommended for Down Syndrome screening. It is standard medical protocol.
The idea is that if my foetus (baby) is found to have a high likelihood of Down syndrome, I will have the 'opportunity' or 'choice' to abort the baby.

When the government of the day legislated for legal abortion back in the day, was screening for disabled children presented as part of the package? Or doesn't that matter?

When women who are presented with the prospect of a Downs Syndrome child, more than 90 per cent exercise their 'choice' of aborting their child.

I wonder how many of these mothers have mixed feelings about the abortion, but follow through because the price of 'opting out' is too high, either socially, or financially.

What of the woman who would like to keep the child, but aborts because her partner, or extended family, is against the child?

What of the woman who keeps the child, in the face of such opposition?

And, what, also, of the government and social attitudes towards the Downs Syndrome children who find themselves alive after the screening process? How has 'individual choice' affected society's attitudes towards them?

During each of my screening procedures, I knew - by virtue of statistics alone - that I would be expected to abort if the information of Downs was presented to me. The medical fraternity approaches the screening process with this outcome in mind.

How, then, will euthanasia procedures slide to reflect community, rather than individual 'business'?

“The aged are far and beyond the most numerous target of the euthanasia legislation, yet they are overwhelmingly opposed to it”

Cornflower, you must occupy a culture vastly different from that of myself: with 79 years behind me, and a large spread of contacts aged +/- a decade or so from my own, the overwhelming evidence among these people is for politicians to butt-out from prohibition of medical assistance for a decent exit, released from severe torturing on their journey towards death.

Individual,

The point is, for Christ's sake, what the hell do you MEAN by euthanasia ? Suicide ? 'Assisted' suicide ? The killing of one person by another who is incapable of doing it themselves, even incapable of moving, even incapable of expressing their intentions, killing for all sorts of incredibly noble and grand reasons ? 'Putting people out of their misery', whether they know it, or want it, or not ? Helping people 'die with dignity', etc. etc. etc.

Why can't some people on this thread see the gradations between:

* outright suicide, one person killing themselves with no other person's involvement;

* through to the involvement of others to set up a suicide situation;

* to the provision of Wills authorising doctors to administer a lethal dose;

* to the actual killing of one person by others, for all manner of humane reasons;

* to the mercy killing of someone in intense, unrelievable pain;

* to the 'dying with dignity' situation of patients with dementia;

* right up to killing people off because the hospital needs the bed,

* or because someone has reached a statutory age (i.e. yours, dear reader) ?

And all of these issues overlap issues of palliative care and pain relief, which may have the effect of hastening death.

But the instant that a second person is involved, the situation is changed from one of autonomy, self-determination, choice, to POTENTIALLY a situation which is much more ambiguous, in which (progressively, through the examples above) the possibility that somebody does NOT want to die increases, and the involvement of other people opens the door progressively to POSSIBLE criminal activity.

It's not all open-and-shut, by any means. We can't let emotion mask a lack of definition, folks.

Joe

It's not all open-and-shut, by any means. We can't let emotion mask a lack of definition, folks.
Loudmouth,
Precisely ! I for one & I'm sure many others too, would not like to linger on in agony or otherwise pointless, devoid of quality existence & depend on people who don't have any other interest in prolonging a miserable situation other than for a job.
Those who constantly cry poor this'n that are the very ones who stay as far away from that situation as possible. How'd you feel if some all his life useless drug addict were to demand that you look after him for a basic wage ? If it were a decent human being who is a member of your family than you'd do it no questions asked, apart from expecting the taxpayer to give carer's allowance. If someone commits suicide then they obviously weren't happy with the place or people around them. If someone is so ill that they can't commit suicide then help them if they want to. It's easier said than done but I'd think I'd rather get put down then be a burden on someone I love or very much care for. Remember that compassion is merely a luxury when we can afford it or we expect others to have it for us. The reality of it all is that people refuse to accept realty when it doesn't go by the text books.
Where is this compassion when it's needed whilst people could still enjoy a quality of life ? Will JG compensate pensioners when their superannuation gets ripped off ? Will JG show compassion when greedy banks repossess family homes due to bureaucratic incompetence ? In my opinion it is the ultimate selfishness to ask someone to look after a seriously permanently ill to sacrifice their quality of life just to prolong someone else's misery. By insisting to keep a severely incapacitated person in a state of pointless existence is creating a pointless existence for the carer also.

Individual,

<<In my opinion it is the ultimate selfishness to ask someone to look after a seriously permanently ill to sacrifice their quality of life just to prolong someone else's misery. By insisting to keep a severely incapacitated person in a state of pointless existence is creating a pointless existence for the carer also.>>

That may be so, palliative care must be physically and mentally exhausting, but carers can always walk away, at least in theory: it still should be up to the person concerned whether OR NOT they want to die. We each have a right to be a nuisance as long as possible for our children, and to have spent every last cent of whatever we have accumulated, if we wish. IF WE WISH. But I would rather that everyone was in the situation where nobody could off them, to use King Hazza's tactful phrase, and get away with it.

So what are the limits to euthanasia ? Beyond what point does it become murder ? Surely there is one ? Or in some people's brave new world, there is no such point ?

Joe