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

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

Dear Loudmouth,
I have a motto on my blog which says: "Argue not with fools, frauds and fanatics. Seek better companions."

I will!

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.

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.

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.