The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Dying with dignity > Comments

Dying with dignity : Comments

By Neil Francis, published 8/10/2010

Eighty-five per cent of Australians want choice over how they die.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Neil, what is the source of the 85% statistic?

Good article.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Friday, 8 October 2010 8:56:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be the one done by Newspoll on behalf of Dying with Dignity NSW, wouldn't it? The methodology has not been mentioned in newspaper reports, however it was said that the poll was of 'adults'. Sample -probably a telephone poll by area code with respondents identifying their age. However those most affected by euthanasia policy are seniors (say age 50 and up) and it would have been more reasonable to have surveyed that group, the large group most affected, which was not done.

A fear is that the availability of euthanasia might encourage a future government to restrict the availability of palliative care and other needed care for all seniors. Tony Abbott the LNP leader introduced that possibility in a debate on euthanasia. Given that successive federal governments have failed to fix the broken aged care system, Mr Abbott's warning ought be heeded.

What Australians should want is to treat seniors fairly and decently, ensuring they are no longer subjected to the discrimination that presently applies to the aged and that adequate aged care is available, which is not presently the case. The availability of euthanasia can be part of that, but to make euthanasia the priority without fixing the aged care system is putting the cart before the horse.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 8 October 2010 9:48:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"" .. to make euthanasia the priority without fixing the aged care system is putting the cart before the horse."

Well said, Cornflower. Optimal palliative care must the primary aim.

I would be concerned if "the availability of euthanasia might encourage a future government to restrict the availability of palliative care and other needed care for all seniors."

For Tony Abbott to introduce that possibility in a debate on euthanasia seems churlish.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 8 October 2010 10:30:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Neil - you give no indication of precisely what it is you that you want. If it is argued that euthanasia is a human right then logically it must be available to all human beings. That is essentially Nitschke's view, that euthanasia should be available on request to anyone who asks for it.

Is that what you are pushing for too? (Is that what 85% of the population say they are wanting?)

You really ought to make your position clear.
Posted by JP, Friday, 8 October 2010 11:26:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that the most exposed under current practices are members of the medical professions (nurses and doctors), though I am unaware of anyone being taken on for murder or manslaughter in recent times - can anyone help with an example? Sanctioning patient-led end of life decision-making seems like a most humane way to give those who want that control some dignity at the end of their life. I support that right but wonder how the legislation will be able to overcome the myriad grey zones that will inevitably pop up. I also wonder how compliance will be measured and how insurers of medical professionals will respond - e.g. by refusing to offer cover to anyone who participates?
Posted by bitey, Friday, 8 October 2010 11:27:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's interesting to note the difference between putting our pets out of their age-related misery and our own kind.

When we take the dog or cat which has reached its use-by date down to the vet. he dispenses the sleeping draught and we go home sad but feeling that we have done the right thing for the animal we loved so much.

We don't have to fill in forms to prove that we don't want to put the dog down because it chewed the corner off the carpet or that it is costing too much in medical bills or that it passes wind under the breakfast table. Our motives are not questioned by anyone!

But put the human animal into the 'death with dignity' equation and all hell breaks loose!

We human animals are a sorry lot!

http://www.dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Friday, 8 October 2010 12:14:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i have said/pretty-much all i care to say...at the euthinasia topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11043&page=0

but lets try to summerise/that discussed there

[last-time..i looked
two athiests were..debating/about this dying/thing..[ie/one-life]

[and/not believing..in an after-life]

so for athiests...its important consideration

remember..you lot think..
you only got one life

so why..chose to cut/it..short...!

then there are.those/who get the/whole thing-wrong
like xtian./jews/even maybe..those following the messenger/mahomoud

im refering..to those fixated..in the deciete/lie/deception
of judgment/and reserction-day

as..refered/to there..

there is no such/thing-as a'day'..of judgment
nor a...'day/of..reserction....for most..its instant/change

[as jesus revealed/
to...even..a thief...on/a..cross

['this day..you shall-be..in heaven']

then/clearly..jesus..re-appearing*/..AFTER*...his death
[this..clearly rebuts/refutes..waiting for a day/of-reserection

as well as..the.."day of judgment"]

its possably..the biggest thing/
even his own..fail to get..!

as many links..i poted/prove...
one second..we are/here/
then in/the...next we are..there...
many actually totally unaware/..they have passed-over

i will remind/too of the complications...
[all dependant upon/freewill...laws]

ie gods/ordainment..
that we are..free to believe/..disbelieve...AS WE CHOSE

thus many/good-true..lie sleeping..{self/..a-coma-tised}..in heaven/hell...thinking their-dead..and acting accordingly

if your going/to..kill some-one

WHY CONDEM THEM..TO THIS HELL..!
by their own ignorance

as revealed there..it would be better/
to put those...'in pain'..into a coma..HERE/now...
better than..for eternity/there

than to/ignorantly..send them into perpetual..spiritual/stasis...

this is a huge..issue/there
[as the links..reveal]

yes/it is easy..to dump/RUBBISH..
thinking..its gone

but put/some..thought into the issue

your claiming..to be ending/physical-suffering
when your..only..making MORE-spiritytual-suffering..!

by acting..in ignorance..of the facts
so clearly revealed..in the writings/from beyond

read..gone-west...that covers many of the issues..
were ignorantly/chosing to formalise...here/now..into-law
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf

remember..there is a law-of/karma
every/action...has its equall..and oppisite re-action

go look upon a 'dead'-person...realise..the law
ENERGY..cannot be..created/nor destroyed

WHERE DID/your loved-ones..life-'energy'..go?

would you...[lol...85%}..ignorantly..send your mum...to hell?

please..do some thinking..on this people

it might-just...be you..sleeping away/eternity..!

for what?

simply believing decievers..wanting an empty/bed
trying to save..a few bucks?

you only have...one...ETERNAL-life

that you..do/here..
WILL AFFECT A GREAT-lot..of the/quality..
of the..next-half..of it

think/...what would jesus/do
now/what..can/you do?

http://new-birth.net/books_life_after_death.htm

http://www.divinetruth.info/naturallovepathdocuments.htm

http://www.divinetruth.info/Downloads/CD/NaturalLove/PDFs/Franchezzo%20-%20A%20Wanderer%20In%20The%20Spirit%20Lands.pdf
Posted by one under god, Friday, 8 October 2010 1:16:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
some/of the other links/i posted
are rather fullsome-longreads/but good reading-

ie going into detail..from a personal perspective

here is..one/..that summerises/things
http://new-birth.net/booklet/GettingOut.PDF

its not so-much..about death/dying/rebirth..from a personal perspective

but more a summation of a few..pointing out common points/problems/cures..to some of the issues
arrising from..being..re-born..in the next-stage..of life

its not much use..re-going..over/the issues
as we all..have our opinion..

trouble being/opinions..are like rectums..[we all got one]

please let this topic be informed..by knowledge.*..!

and/realise..science reveals..
there just might be other dimentions
lets call them heaven./hell..till we know..for certain

remember..science reveals...energy..
cant/be created*..nor destroyed
[for the athiest]...

thus..life=force/energy..cant be extinguished
but it..can transpher..to another dimention

for those/
of religious/believings

recall..the law
thou..shalt/not kill

dying..[for those..who have/seen..the process]
is far from dignified

dying with dignety..is an oximoron

even worse..is dying drugged..to the eyeballs
totally insens-able...compusmensus?

so drugged-up..your..like a/drunk..
and often..dont/even realise..your presumed..dead

we put our/faith...in men
but what..god-head./beliefs/opinions..are they serving

that of..the flesh...?
or worse decieved-spiritualisms/doctrane..
killing...lol..for love?

or..the..ever-living/good..
[love-thy/neighbour..due to all
that gives/..love/service..to all those...

...only god can give..to live

give those..suffering cure/remedy..from their suffering
not simply/put-them...out/of..our* missery
and by ignorance prolong-it

some-one said..about putting..down-pets
then walking away

but where/did it's..soul/life-force..go?
dont we need/..to-be..sure?

yes its..material/suffering..seems ended

but what/of..that living..[life-force]..
that trusts you/..loved-you...

but..that can/never end?
Posted by one under god, Friday, 8 October 2010 2:58:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god: I stopped reading after "you atheists believe you only get one life"...well actually I take issue with that!
I do not subscribe to Theism, nor do I believe we only have one life.
It is easy to dismiss alternate philosophies if you impose your own limited false views on the world and fail to learn what people actually do believe...the old straw man technique. Good for the ego I guess but it doesn't help people get along!
Back on topic: I, and my family *will* die with dignity regardless of what the minority churchy authoritarians want. You can threaten and cajole, but unless you lock us all up it cannot be prevented.
Just as with the "war on drugs" you impose unrealistic ideals on folks that don't want, nor need your ignorant stunted moral imperialism.
Yes its a tricky "political" issue, but as an ethical one it is simple: Do as *you* and your loved ones want, stay out of others lives. It is simple respect.
Posted by Ozandy, Friday, 8 October 2010 3:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
".... resort to fear and smear campaigns, distorting and misrepresenting the truth about how such a law works in other jurisdictions. For example, in his recent On Line Opinion piece Gillard’s conflict on euthanasia more than justified Jim Wallace said in as few words that Dr Philip Nitschke admitted that he had “probably breached the law”. Dr Nitschke did not admit that, and to represent so is a willing distortion of the truth."

I think my favourite to date is the mock news cast, in which Jim and his pal lied that Hockey's absurd "In defence of god" speech was about christian values and reinforced the value of christianity.

Read the text.
In his speech to the Sydney Institute, Mr Hockey said Christianity's declining popularity in the West was a result of many church leaders interpreting the Bible too literally.

"By encouraging literalist analysis of the Bible, many churches have inadvertently invited people to question the validity of a faith that seems to be based on questionable facts of outdated prescriptions," he said.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/hockey-speech-not-linked-to-leadership/story-e6frfku9-1225796033861#ixzz11kCHtL8C
Posted by Firesnake, Friday, 8 October 2010 3:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Ozandy and the same goes for those of us who do NOT want to get topped. As a 67-year-old, I suggest that euthanasia, voluntary OF COURSE, should be an unquestioned right of all those aged 66 and younger - those aged 67 and older should require a special permit.

And should all of those 85 % who are so happy to support the deaths of others put their names on the lists, and be first to stand in line ?

There ARE some of us who are not too enthusiastic to give away our one-and-only life, just yet. There are roses to smell, places to see, children to annoy.

So, Ozandy, if you want to top yourself, give yourself a pat on the back, you're a hero - now go off and do it. But leave the rest of us alone.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 8 October 2010 3:59:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G, "It's interesting to note the difference between putting our pets out of their age-related misery and our own kind."

Agreed and that is why the broken aged care system has to be replaced with a new system that works. Reports of maltreatment of the old in nursing homes would automatically result in prosecutions and large fines if they were pet dogs, cats or even rats.

'ELDERLY patients in nursing homes are being fed cold and inedible food, left sitting in urine and faeces and subjected to cruel and at times inhumane treatment from overworked and underresourced carers.

The Sunday Telegraph worked undercover inside two metropolitan nursing homes for three weeks and found that some of Sydney's most vulnerable citizens are being mistreated and left to die inside sterile, cold and smelly aged-care facilities.

The high-care homes - run by Bupa Care Services and Domain Principal Group and overseen by the federal Government - advertise superior aged-care offering personal support and respect for the elderly.

However, many miserable, despondent and desperately lonely residents, who pay 85 per cent of their $671.90 fortnightly pension, live in often despicable conditions and are treated with disrespect. Frail but mentally sound residents talked about being "scared", "lonely" and "waiting to die".'

http://www.news.com.au/national/unfed-and-unwashed-nursing-home-residents-living-in-hell/story-e6frfkvr-1225872968031

and this,
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/nursing-home-manager-sacked-over-squalor-20101007-168jb.html

and this,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/14/2926529.htm

The seniors who are indisputably the main targets of euthanasia are also the most discriminated group in Australia, yet they do not even have a Commissioner to champion their rights. However the politically correct 'isms', such as racism and sexism, still retain enormous political clout and special Commissioners and advisory groups attached to them, despite the fact that these issues have largely been successfully dealt with and long ago. Multiculturalism has an special, expensive council to advocate its interests,

http://www.immi.gov.au/about/stakeholder-engagement/national/advisory/amac/

Why aren't those who are as keen as mustard to represent the right of the aged to end their lives also stumping up to end ageism, the most prevalent discrimination in Australia, and demanding that government act to replace the broken aged care system that is so embarrassing internationally to Australia?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/15/3012042.htm
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 8 October 2010 4:01:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been an adherent to a friendly way to go for about 45years or since watching my Granddad die ; along drawn out process that really taxed my mother (his Daughter) to the limit damaging her health both physically and mentally . I recall being within a hairs breath of stopping him breathing when Mum appeared on the scene I was 18 at that time , I have over the years considered the consequences had Mum not arrived in time , I really didn't think anything about moral or legal
consequences . The event was a nightmare lasting about 2 years and subsequent to the dying stage this poor Man was gassed during the first world war in France his other injury was far more engaging it consisted of a shard of bronze that stuck out of his forehead about 3mm and was about 35mm long and depth unknown the wound was antique green.
What a shame this poor beggar had to suffer such a long miserable and angry death , misery exemplified .
Posted by Garum Masala, Friday, 8 October 2010 4:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a serious topic, and ought not be trivialised by people who pretend that legalization of euthanasia is carte blanche to get rid of any old person you feel like.

>>There ARE some of us who are not too enthusiastic to give away our one-and-only life, just yet.<<

For the record, Loudmouth, no-one has yet suggested involuntary euthanasia.

The question we should be addressing is the one that keeps getting hidden under the posturing: how do we ensure that it is, in fact, voluntary?

It's should not be too hard, surely.

But it keeps getting buried under the "every sperm is sacred" rhetoric.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 8 October 2010 5:44:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, "no-one has yet suggested involuntary euthanasia."

There is the voluntary where the person knows s/he is valued and has supports and pain control for daily living.

Then there is the 'voluntary' that could apply in Australia, a culture that doesn't value its seniors, actively discriminates against them even in the obvious area of employment, and permits a broken aged care system to continue despite the obvious suffering it causes.

What prevents the supporters of euthanasia for the aged (who else?) from similarly demanding that the aged should be guaranteed their rights, respect and adequate care while they are alive? Surely this is crucial to ensuring that voluntary euthanasia is in fact voluntary and not just the only way out for the unwilling hostages of a wretchedly poor aged care system and an environment where they are treated as worthless baggage and an unnecessary overhead on the economy?

Seriously, how can the Greens and others be pushing euthanasia without reviewing and challenging the less than satisfactory attitudes to the aged and the shabby treatment of them in our culture? Go to Canberra, the nation's capital - where else in the world are the aged so well hidden from view and what does that say about our culture?
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 8 October 2010 6:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Pericles, I'm certainly not suggesting that INvoluntary euthanasia will, hopefully, ever be on the books, but I am worried about the creation of a climate of expectation, that old people will be constantly reminded that they have had their share and it would be socially responsible to say goodbye.

And a corollary of this would be the humane removal, as it will probably be termed, of all those demented and insensate people in old people's homes who are, let's face it, really just taking up space and using taxpayers' funds, which can be used for far more valuable humanitarian purposes, such as wells for the Third World and prosthetic limbs and food for its children. Yeah, right.

Hmmmm ..... people who have lost limbs ...... yes, that can come later ...... then the unfit ....... then ......

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 8 October 2010 7:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower, I am totally with you on the awful state of our aged care system. I am fully aware that if we had a better life as an aged person in an aged care facility, there would be far less need for voluntary euthanasia requests.

After working in an Aged Care facility for several years until I left in disgust two years ago, I can say that the nursing staff that were on site (and there were precious few of them allowed to be employed), were fighting an uphill battle to secure proper care for the residents.

The government only supplies enough funds to employ the 'aged care workers' who are rushed through a quick part-time 6 month 'education' program and are then sent out to care for the most vulnerable people in our society. It is disgusting in my opinion.

Almost all the residents in the two nursing homes I worked in asked about being 'put down' on at least one occasion. The most enduring problem was the extreme boredom and loneliness these people suffered from. Almost all of them were on antidepressant medications.

I for one am worried about what happens to me or my relatives if we ever need to be admitted to a high care aged care facility.
I just hope I have the option of euthanasia should that happen.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 8 October 2010 8:04:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, "I am worried about the creation of a climate of expectation, that old people will be constantly reminded that they have had their share and it would be socially responsible to say goodbye."

Unsubtle.

More subtle,
Couldn't it be argued that it is too expensive to provide support for elderly widows still living in their matrimonial homes in small towns and outlying areas and there is nothing to stop the selfish (they own property, right?) buggers from selling up and buying into an entrepreneur's el cheapo unit block or aged care home in a 're-developed' undesirable 'burb of the nearest city?

Good, now how long would those old wrinklies last after they have lost their treasured independence, familiar surroundings, friends and memories (all of that old stuff just had to go)? If they last more than 12 months after being moved, their undiagnosed depression (poorly diagnosed in the aged and who cares anyhow), bedsores and general ill-health after nursing home 'care' should see them snatching for pills or the green dream, whatever is available.

Come to think of it, to make those aged care homes viable and stimulate investment, there would have to be policies to encourage the aged to take up the opportunities they present, right? Put up the council rates on their houses, now! Hold on, that is already being done.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 8 October 2010 8:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,

There is absolutely no doubt aged care is a disgrace; most of us have seen it first hand and I don't think there is anyone who doesn't see the drastic need for improvement in this service.

But it is a different issue (albeit related intrinsically) to the moral debate of euthanasia.

Let's hope the situation improves in aged care facilities so that euthanasia is not such an attractive option for so many... But it doesn't mean euthanasia should not be available for those who really do need it.

Loudmouth:
"And should all of those 85 % who are so happy to support the deaths of others put their names on the lists, and be first to stand in line ?"

Read the article again please. They aren't talking about euthanasing others, they are saying they would like to have the choice for themselves.

oneundergod,

I can't take you seriously when your whole belief system was totally debunked when Gandalf The Grey re-emerged from the dead as Gandalf The White. Besides, us Jedis return to the corporeal world in spirit form to chat with our fellow Jedis, so there's no real problem with euthanasia for us at all.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Friday, 8 October 2010 8:50:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author states that "85 per cent of Australians want choice over how they die and that includes three out of four Catholics, four out of five Anglicans and nine out of ten Australians with no religion." It would be helpful if the following information were provided: the questions asked in the survey, the answers broken down by age and by religion, and the definition of euthanasia provided in the survey.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 8 October 2010 10:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrashcanMan, "But it is a different issue (albeit related intrinsically) to the moral debate of euthanasia."

It is relevant because where discrimination already exists and adequate care is already being denied (as is the case in Australia), euthanasia is seen as a logical extension of those policies and practices.

But what prevents the Greens from supporting a Commissioner for the Aged? Aren't the rights of the aged worth protecting?
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 9 October 2010 12:54:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aren't the rights of the aged worth protecting?
Cornflower,
very valid question. We need to establish as to what's right morally & technically. Morally I believe it is the family who should be the #1 protector. If this is not possible due to no relatives or the relatives' financial situation then Government hast a technical responsibility to take over. If we can afford to keep hordes of useless retired public servants at great cost then morally & technically we can afford to look after the basic needs for the aged, most of whom are so worn out they only last a few years into retirement. They have spent their life paying tax so the public servants can have a carefree existence for life. It's morally fair to make the retirement years of working people a little easier. There's no dignity in dying in a run down old caravan or in an aged facility where no-one cares. Our six retired PM's are costing us about $100 000 00.- combined. Then there are the judges & Ministers, bureaucrats etc etc.
If we can afford them then we can afford to look after the workers who helped create this wealth. Don't wait for the unions, they only pretend to help after you've paid union fees.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 9 October 2010 1:51:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oops ! That should read a $100 000 000.- as in 100 million.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 9 October 2010 2:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trying to draw a link between people who are living in substandard aged facilities and those who are dying terribly and want to end their lives with dignity is ridiculous!

These are two separate issues entirely and to try to meld them is irrational and counterproductive. Keep these important issues completely separate otherwise important progress will occur with neither.
Posted by David G, Saturday, 9 October 2010 6:41:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G,
Aren't we talking quality of life here as long as one is not dead ?
I think it's ridiculous to try and categorise people's existence in a bureaucratic fashion. Dying with dignity is pointless when there's no dignity in getting to the dying stage.
It's a bit like putting up a grand headstone for someone who was ignored throughout their life. Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.
If more courtesy was extended to people in their life in general then far less effort & care would be needed towards their declining years. There would also be more dignity.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 9 October 2010 10:35:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the Mary Potter Home in North Adelaide caters to all without asking if they means test for a belief in a higher being. They do it out of love. And they have excellent palliative care.

Peter Singer, that arch utilitarian, baulked when asked if he could put his own mother down. How could he? Indeed, how could anyone with the tiniest shred of humanity in them?

Even if 99% of the Australian population had a referendum and agreed that euthanasia was a fundamental human right to be enshrined in the Australian Constitution, it still wouldn't be right: it would just be as odious as the one about excluding certain undesirable races - I forget which one, but it's 'odious' indeed, just jumps off the page at you! - or in the American context, the Dred Scott decision which makes black Americans private property and the Roe v Wade decision of 1973 which also makes the unborn 'property' to be disposed of at the convenience of the 'carrier'. Just like slavery. Just another barbaric and inhumane ideology.

But we are so so modern, aren't we? Just "throw Momma off the train" and let's get on with life, shall we?
Posted by SHRODE, Sunday, 10 October 2010 12:18:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would there have been 85% support were the question asked in the following way?

Do you support legalised killing?
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 10 October 2010 8:02:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you support legalised killing.
Fester,
I'll answer first with a question. Do you believe we have the integrity in Australia not to abuse legalised killing ? For useless drug addicts, criminals, serial thieves, corrupt law enforcers etc it would be of benefit to decent society. You have to be cruel to be kind. Trouble is that decency never gets the upper hand. It's much easier to tolerate the misery thrust upon innocent decent folk than making scoundrels accountable for causing the misery. I think a 4x2 would be very dignified for many of the scoundrels in public office.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 10 October 2010 8:37:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[quote] Just "throw Momma off the train" and let's get on with life, shall we? [/quote]
Posted by SHRODE, Sunday, 10 October 2010 12:18:44 AM

No one is advocating that train-wreck of an approach, and to intimate that is a straw-man fallacy.
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 10 October 2010 8:53:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really, McReal ?

David G wrote on Friday: "We don't have to fill in forms to prove that we don't want to put the dog down because it chewed the corner off the carpet or that it is costing too much in medical bills or that it passes wind under the breakfast table. Our motives are not questioned by anyone!

"But put the human animal into the 'death with dignity' equation and all hell breaks loose!"

Let's hope that, when David G becomes prime minister, his wife or kids don't pass wind under the breakfast table :)

I'm intrigued by that little line: "Our motives are not questioned by anyone!" with its implication that one should be able to put down relatives with no questions being asked. Call me old-fashioned but perhaps the law still recognises humans as having more rights than dogs: perhaps David G and Peter Singer would like to change that ?

Put your names on the list, boys.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 October 2010 10:08:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, it's sad that you've never heard of satire! Can't be helped, I suppose.

If you did an English course, you might catch on. Might.

Your pseudonym is appropriate. Then you probably don't know what that is either!

Sigh.
Posted by David G, Sunday, 10 October 2010 11:58:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A devastating riposte, David :(

Please let me clarify: I would support the decriminalisation of suicide, subject wherever possible to far better counselling services, since after all, we already have far too many people suiciding across Australia - just ask Bob Katter, Patrick McGorry and anybody working with Aboriginal youth.

My point is: how do we distinguish between voluntary and involuntary death ? If a second person is involved in someone's death, how can we be sure that manslaughter or murder has not been committed ?

Yes, if someone passes wind under the breakfast table and is so mortified that they suicide forthwith, that's their choice (one which perhaps has the full support of their fellow-diners). But they might have trouble explaining it all to the police, and distinguishing it from involuntary death at their hands.

Yes, people should have the right to go (peacefully or otherwise) at a time of their own choosing. But we all have the right NOT to take our own lives just yet, if we don't want to. The problem is how to tell the difference in many circumstances, particularly if other people are present along with the means of disposal. Ironically, once suicide is legalised, there may be MORE charges of manslaughter or murder laid by police because it may be MORE difficult to tell the two apart, if only because the means would be easier to acquire, and it would not be an offence for other people to be present and to do nothing to prevent the suicide. As King Hazza keep suggesting, a written document might be necessary even in these circumstances.

And yes, of course far more funding should be made available for better palliative care, pain relief and counselling, for people with terminal illness. But surely, wherever possible, we should be trying to prolong life ? It's the only one that our loved ones will get, after all. Yes, towards the very end, pain relief may hasten the inevitable, but that also should be the person's choice, as should its administration, where possible.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 October 2010 12:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As humans, we have the ability to "reason" and "justify" anything we chose to believe in, regardless of the consequences.

I work in an "ageing" aged care facility.I see death and the dying every day. I do not actively believe in euthenasia, but I do not believe in prolonging life where there is no hope for life. I have seen mentally able persons refuse all treatment other than necessary pain relief.

We are an ageing population, but our quality of ageing is not necessarily getting any better. Euthenasia is a "quick fix".

We need more research into "quality living", "pain relief", and "quality palliative care".

Nursing the aged and dying requires a special person. We can have dignity no matter how or when we die. We are living in a "quick fix" "throwaway" society who want everything "now".

Living takes time and compassion - as does dying.
Posted by searching, Sunday, 10 October 2010 1:37:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""Really, McReal ?

David G wrote on Friday: "We don't have to fill in forms to prove that we don't want to put the dog down because it chewed the corner off the carpet or that it is costing too much in medical bills or that it passes wind under the breakfast table. Our motives are not questioned by anyone!""

Let's hope that, when David G becomes prime minister, his wife or kids don't pass wind under the breakfast table :) ""

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 October 2010 10:08:53 AM

Hopefully he did sign a consent for euthanasia form. Plenty of people euthanase their animals because they can't afford the vet medical bills.

Hopefully the debate wont go too far into the dogs-as-analogy scenario.

I think they should strengthen the criteria for murder for people that kill relatives under their care, and increase the penalties, especially if "voluntary euthanasia for near-end terminal patients" is going to be introduced.

[David G, don't forget the dog is a good foil to blame when one passes wind - gotta eat the same food to get away with it tho']
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 10 October 2010 1:51:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
searching,

An excellent post, thank you.

The poor understanding of the aged and the ingrained prejudice against them in the Australian culture (and both endemic in the medical profession and health administration), ensure that the skills and training required for gerontology nursing and care are not recognised in pay scales. The low pay and poor conditions for workers in aged care further compound the problems for the aged in our society, by reinforcing the low status of the aged.

Euthanasia policy is not a stand-alone, it must be linked into the continuum of aged care. There are ethical, moral and economic dimensions that need to be to be considered for older people -the main 'clients' of the policy - yet very little or no research has been conducted into euthanasia and people aged 50+ in Australia. However, financial considerations already impact on aged care at macro level, for instance through restrictions on funding to improve aged care. At micro level, it should be blindingly obvious that the financial burden of hospital care and pharmaceuticals have a severe impact on dependants and families of lower socio-economic groups in particular.

It is because the old and especially the sick old are very vulnerable and do not interest any of the established political parties -except to note the burden of the aged through pensions, hospital care, pharmaceutical subsidies and the like- that I have to come to believe that the aged need a champion in the form of a special Commissioner for the Aged to represent their interests. It is interesting that those who support 'euthanasia now', are not at all interested in protecting the rights of the aged, but why not?
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 10 October 2010 9:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot-on with everything you write, Cornflower. Thank you.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 October 2010 11:06:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower& Loudmouth ...I agree

But it should not be illegal to choose exactly when "you" want to die .

Perhaps it should be difficult to be legal under 65 years depending on circumstances .

I know how I am going to die , it's not going to be quick or pretty
I have had twelve Strokes so I know what is coming my way , I also worked in a hospital for 4 years so I have first hand knowledge regarding the process of dying , adrenalin injections and Morphine regulators , no thanks not for me .
Posted by Garum Masala, Monday, 11 October 2010 1:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A problem here might be the sheer breadth of some of the generalizations being made.

Loudmouth asserts:

>>But surely, wherever possible, we should be trying to prolong life?<<

As Tonto once said, ""Who's 'we', Kemo Sabe?"

If "we" are the medical establishment, from R&D to palliative care, the answer must be a resounding "yes".

But if "we" are those people watching a loved one die, slowly and painfully, the answer is not - or should not - be quite so clear-cut.

Cornflower also generalizes.

>>It is interesting that those who support 'euthanasia now', are not at all interested in protecting the rights of the aged, but why not?<<

There is no evidence that supporters of euthanasia are not also supporters of the "rights of the aged". They just happen to believe that one of these should be their right to decide when they have had enough.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 11 October 2010 5:44:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Pericles, but in my defence, I did write: " ... better palliative care, pain relief and counselling, for people with terminal illness."

Of course, a person should have the right to decide for themselves and obviously, this will be more salient where someone is in unrelievable pain or distress. But the bottom line is that it is THEIR own decision, not anyone else's.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 11 October 2010 8:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, "There is no evidence that supporters of euthanasia are not also supporters of the 'rights of the aged'. They just happen to believe that one of these should be their right to decide when they have had enough."

I have previously taken the Greens to task because they are chafing at the bit to get euthanasia in for the aged, but they are not well known for their concern for seniors or their rights, now are they?

That feeling that they (the aged) have "had enough", will come a whole lot sooner for some precisely because the aged care system is an absolute mess. I will not add more because I have covered a lot already in my previous posts.

Joe,

Thank you for your kind comment.

Garum Masala,

I am very sorry to hear about your state of health. I agree with you, the wretched problem is that one has to be conscious and of sound mind to refuse treatment and get the pain relief and other comforts when you arrive in emergency as the result of a terminal condition, or else the awful cycle of diagnosis and so on (including distress and pain) is gone through again for the purposes of death denial. That was some sentence, but you will understand. I would have certain instructions tattooed on my arm if anyone would take notice of them.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 11 October 2010 12:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tattooing a living will on your arm is a good idea, Cornflower. But then a do-gooder or policeman would claim a greedy relative of yours did it while you were drugged.

The only way is for the Government to issue each adult with a bottle of barbiturates, one labeled 'Safety Exit If Required!'

A lot of people would sleep more easily.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Monday, 11 October 2010 2:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G

The problem is that I could have changed my mind any minute up to when the obligatory life saving heroics commenced, my reply to Garam Marsala refers.

Those with a diagnosed terminal illness can save themselves a lot of pain if they wish by ensuring that they tell treating medical staff I immediately on admission for an emergency what their health status is and that they do not want life saving treatment. That way they will be given full pain relief and every comfort possible - which is not possible if treating doctors start the diagnosis and rescue (alertness of the patient and noting of symptoms can be masked by pain relief). See here,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/health/patients-die-in-agony-because-difficult-words-remain-unsaid-says-top-surgeon/story-e6frer7f-1225936837797

I have no idea why this information isn't commonly available and it certainly isn't something that has been publicised by the Greens, who inexplicably are rushing ahead like a bull at a gate. Doesn't Dr Bob Brown know that and isn't he aware that the effects of the proposed euthanasia policy has yet to be studied for seniors and in the Australian context? Earlier I linked to an Australian paper that discussed the lack of understanding of the aged and discrimination against them in the health arena and including medical staff. Here it is again with information on the poor diagnosis and treatment of depression and the aged, which is also relevant,

http://www.ciap.health.nsw.gov.au/hospolic/stvincents/1993/a06.html

http://www.healthyplace.com/depression/elderly/depression-in-elderly/menu-id-68/

Just repeating myself, I support euthanasia in principle, however like many others I struggle with the likely implications for the aged in a country where discrimination against the aged is very active and widespread, the aged care system is broken and economics rules the political debate. What prevents the appointment of a Commissioner for the Aged to represent their rights? No-one else seems too concerned about them, least of all the Greens who are red-hot for the rights of some interest groups, but not the rights of the aged, where discrimination is most prevalent. For the aged it is euthanasia first and never you mind about the old buggers' rights. It just doesn't figure, does it?
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 11 October 2010 9:09:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a shame we don't live in an environment and have a culture like the Eskimos. When their older people feel they've reached their use-by date because of age or sickness, they just walk out into the night and the cold does the rest. They have a social conscience.

In our society, too many people think that keeping human vegetables alive is a good thing. They also think that keeping alive people who can only lie in a bed and wear nappies is a good thing too.

We don't treat death as a fact of life. We try to pretend it doesn't exist by unnecessarily prolonging life. We deny that death is a blessed relief for many.

It's time we got real and accepted the facts of life! Death is one of them.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 8:22:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for clarifying the pro-euthanasia position, David.

So, from what you write, the pro-euthanasia lobby advocates:

* that old people should 'walk out into the snow' when they reach a certain level of infirmity (or certain age ?): they should demonstrate a social conscience;

* people who are 'vegetables', insensate, with advanced dementia, should be euthanased;

* people who are incontinent and helpless should be euthanased.;

* people who give what might be the slightest indication that they want to die, according to a grieving relative, should be euthanased.

Any other spurious grounds for killing off older people ?

I think, on that basis, that Cornflower is onto something.

Who else do you think should be euthanased, and on what grounds ?

Need any help to put your name on any of these lists, David ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 9:57:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,
I have a motto on my blog which says: "Argue not with fools, frauds and fanatics. Seek better companions."

I will!
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 7:21:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough, but here is more evidence today if anyone ever doubted that economics is driving aged health policy,

"TERMINALLY ill patients are being left to die in Queensland hospitals because the Bligh Government is failing to adequately fund community palliative care, lobbyists say.

The state's leading palliative care advocate has revealed how the situation has reached breaking point, with the level of funding now so low it is unable to meet demand.

Despite two reports commissioned by Queensland Health last year recommending changes to the service, the Government has failed to act.

It means many Queenslanders are left suffering from preventable pain in the weeks before their death, with others forced to die in a general hospital ward instead of in the comfort of their own home."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-health-funding-shortfall-leaves-the-sick-left-to-die-in-pain/story-e6freoof-1225937853889

More evidence as if any is needed that a Commissioner for the Aged is required to champion the rights of seniors and especially the vulnerable sick aged. How do Bob Brown and the Greens keep on missing the obvious? Oh, that's right, it is sooo simple, flick them a pill and they will take it much earlier so as not to be bothersome. Yay, generational turnover of assets that much earlier and (ahem) that is where the Greens' new Death Duties also figure in the equation.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 7:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
searching and Cornflower you make some good points.

In any discussion about euthanasia there should be a commitment to improve palliative care and ensure access to appropriate pain medication. Sometimes the appropriate pain medication has the same effect as euthanasia but only as a byproduct rather than specific intent (an unspoken one anyway).

I wonder if that is enough to alleviate real human suffering or whether the point is about the human right to choose. It is by no means a black and white issue - except to a person who wants to die.

There is no reason however to assume that euthanasia legislation will not carry those failsafes and will not bed down some stringent caveats about palliative care and appropriate aged care. There is no reason to believe that a Euthanasia Bill will by its nature mean palliative care services will be reduced. Which is why it is good to have this debate.

The AMA thus far opposes euthanasia so the debate is far from resolved.

There is a tendency for both sides of the euthanasia debate to see a the opposing view as heartless. Neither is right - both are operating from a premise of compassion albeit seeing the issue from a different perspective.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 8:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,

It is all in the too hard basket of government and health is presently in disarray.

Research involving the main target group, seniors 50 and above is the priority and the way ahead. We need to think again about the contribution of seniors, ageing and related issues, including death. For all sorts of reasons there are savings (and respect, self-determination and health advantages for seniors) to be had from maintaining seniors in their homes longer and that includes during the final stage of life, wherever possible (and as the first choice).

It is through their own control of those aspects, such as their own pain relief, that the the 'problem' of euthanasia can be handled as well. First treat them as adults. Bring them into the room and let them decide. I would rule out nothing, even to take an example, that seniors should be allowed to grow enough 'weed' for self medication for pain and comfort.

I am convinced that a Commissioner for the Aged is necessary.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 10:27:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Errr... I hate to bring this up, Cornflower.

>>Research involving the main target group, seniors 50 and above is the priority and the way ahead<<

But haven't you already told us that there are such research?

>>National Seniors has several hundred thousand members plus and the survey of its members showed 75% opposed to euthanasia<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11043#184979

Just sayin'
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 10:43:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, "But haven't you already told us that there are such research?"

From a superficial reading you could obtain that view, but hopefully others would not because they would have done me the honour of reading all of my posts in the thread.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 11:00:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with everything Cornflower has stated and brought to this debate. It is obvious that Cornflower has studied the material and evidence on which reasoned analysis is based. If one's life is so empty and the only excitement is when a hearse pulls up at the door, as in some aged facilities, it is understandable that death looks attractive. With better management and resources, these facilities can provide all that is needed for a rich and rewarding end of life.

I do not think that others should be involved in taking one's own life. If one believes that this is appropriate now or some time in the future, then one should make one's own preparations for this. It is hardly dying with dignity to have others involved ... Also, as I understand, if a person's pain is too great, the doctors will administer pain relief even if they know it it will hasten the end. It really is for research to develop better methods of managing disease and trauma. The risk of the concept of assisted euthenasia can lead to a malaise about this line of pursuit.

Logically if we apply the right of assisted euthenasia to the elderly and/or very ill, then we should apply it equally to very ill children. The argument being that "no one should die like a dog" should be especially applicable to children; or are they not considered to be of consequence in this debate. None have mentioned this. This really is a core issue as to the integrity of any argument.

Many argue for euthenasia, but it seems to be for the aged or very ill older adults. To have any value, the argument cannot dismiss any segment of the population.

On hearing a compassionate cry of putting someone "out of their misey," it often sounds more as if the observer is the most discomforted/uncomfortable at seeing a person in such as state, than the patient is themselves.
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 5:36:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
comments attempted to be posted
http://bigthink.com/idea_feed_items/3314
but post failed ...so leave it here ..for now

What an important topic...asking many vital questions..so lets try shinning some light upon a few

When is it ethical to turn off a ventilator or remove a feeding tube?

this is so dependant upon informed concent...not just to save money ...or to get an empty bed....again other considerations ned to be made plain

like is the patient aware of life hereafter?
do they know the reality that energy cant be created nor destroyed..[thus the real possability of their LIFE ENERGY...needing to follow the same LAW]

then there are those who have been lied to...expect a day of judgment [when the reality is we are only given more of the same...as we chose in this realm]..those who did nothing..will get more [nothing]...those who loved much will get more[love]...those who injured will feel every stroke they put upon others

SO MUCH DEPENDS ON IF THE SPIRIT IS READY...for that moment the physical disolves into the emotional...[for the next realm is fully built on our emotions based on the action/reactions WE caused here...

When does 'life support' lose its meaning?
when life quality has no dignety...has lost all the oppertuinity to do the good works that earn the highest honours in the next life...

when those who have been decieved about one life ..thats it...many are just walking dead..these must be made aware there is so much more TO COME

And most critically, at what point is it acceptable to cut into a body and remove the heart that could save another life?
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 21 October 2010 4:46:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
this area is fraught with human error...we have long known the power of t-cells to heal...OUR OWN BODIES...less known is that our OWN fat cells have t-cells in them...its simply a matter of centrifuging them...then injecting them back into our ailing body parts...then sustaining life while the body rebuilds itself

it is playing with fire...much that passes as medical..lol..AID..is simply the docter setting the bone..so the body can heal ITSELF...of course its more complicated than we realise...yet also in the near future more Simple

should those of athiestic beliefs be killed...DEPRIVED of what they REALLY believe to be only ONE life chance?

religeon has failed us with much of their materialism...its time people realised the science FACT...energy CANT be CREATED nor detroyed..this law include's.. LIFE energy...

all must KNOW
we shall be 'born' again...its there the real 2de life story gets revealed and accorded its due fruit...this first life sets us up for the next...and thats a matter of god/you...

one to one...naught to do with religeon/science/docters/priests who clearly are serving their own material calling..or adgendas...

the next life is an amasing thing...
but so too the living of this one..
[so important as a beginning point ..to the next]

we are eternal..[immortal] spirits ..having a material incarnation

we each are sent here for one life term...
to get bailed ..from it retards the growth ..in the next
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 21 October 2010 4:46:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy