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 .

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.

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

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.

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

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?