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.

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

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.

""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']

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?

Spot-on with everything you write, Cornflower. Thank you.

Joe