The figure of 80% in favour probably comes from polls conducted through on-line media.

Optimal palliative care is critical for terminally ill patients, and optimal mental health services are critical for sufferers of mental health issues.

I agree that "reducing the argument to a crass monetary level is demeaning." However, it is a strawman fallacy to say "right to die advocates .... are far more concerned with cost-effective economic rationalism than the value of the human person."

Issues around religious belief, or lack of them, and "principles", and purported lack of depth of those, are easily conflated and confused.

If optimal palliative care is not providing adequate relief for a terminally ill patient in the terminal phase of their illness - as it does for 99% of patients - then euthanasia seems a reasonable, merciful option for that rare patient. Claims we would be on a slippery slope beyond that can be readily addressed in a mature society like Australia's by appropriate review procedures and medical panels.

Pat
Euthanasia is a serious subject and should not be taken lightly but think you are being unfair in your claims about euthanasia advocates, in order to protect a religious agenda. A religious agenda is one thing and people should be free to follow the doctrines of their faith - but should it be forced on people who do not share your beliefs?

Do you sincerely believe the majority of euthanasia advocates are all about economic rationalisation? Surely our fellow men and women are better than that.

Euthanasia is practised unofficially in many medical settings including increasing morphine dosage to offset pain at a level that is considered most probably fatal. What do we do, do we keep treating the 'pain' until the effect is the same as euthanasia or do we just get on with making legislative conditions strong enough to withstand possible abuses.

Who is advocating it as an economic saving?

Most of the documentaries I have seen on the subject have (naturally) focussed on older Australians who wish to have the right to die, in consultation with their doctor/doctors, should they be terminally ill and in pain or a there is a growing awareness of what it might be like to live with alzheimers. If you have ever seen anyone in the grip of dementia it is truly a scary and woeful existence for the patient and I know I would rather meet a painless end rather than endure that horror.

I can't see Catholics or others who do not condone euthanasia being forced or pressured to euthanase even for pain relief if that is not their choice.

I do understand some of the bureaucratic concerns, but strong protections in legislation would offer safeguards and ensure governments continue to deliver high quality palliative care like the wonderful Clare Holland House.

"Who can tell when it is right to die?"
The patient- end of story.
And that includes being allowed to choose life-ending drugs over dying as a result of denial of medication, too.

Of course, when the article is written by a Catholic Bishop, he would (and has) tried his very best to employ dishonesty to make it appear NOT the case.

Nothing left to see here, all the arguments for the Euthanasia debate have been comprehensively covered in both this forum, the "Rational Skepticism forum, and hundreds of others- from confirming patient wishes in all different circumstances (including written request-to-die form prior to disability), who would perform the procedure (grant anyone with background checks, willing to take some training a license to euthanize), and the safeguards.

Everything else not already covered is just disingenous or outright ignorant posturing- just like the good Bishop's dishonest article.

Pat,

As a Catholic Bishop, I am not surprised that you follow the church's dogma, However, I am surprised that you are prepared to bend the truth to such an extent in representing the issue.

In considering euthanasia there was always in consideration a panel of experts to confirm that the patient is suffering from a condition that is either terminal and or involves suffering that cannot be mitigated medically. Also they need to confirm that the patient is not simply suffering from a medical depression, and that it is his sustained will not to continue living.

If all these conditions are met, the only obstacle is the present law and those religious zealots who wish to perpetuate their suffering.

Pelican , you seem to be saying that everyone with dementia would prefer to be dead. I dont agree. My father has dementia but he still has a dignity and a sense of humour. i believe he still enjoys life.

The pushers of the right to death debate are in denial of human nature. There will be a large number of children and grandchildren who have little to do with caring for the elderly and who will suddenly take interest in their inheritance. Just happens most pro deathers also show no conscience in killing the unborn. Why am I surprised?

If I claim to have a divine revelation, and embrace a religion which advocates the compulsory execution of anyone over 55, do I have the same rights as Pat Power to promulgate my views in public and condemn anyone as mercenary and wrong-headed for disagreeing with them? Do I get to excommunicate hospitals which fail to carry out my instructions? And if not, why not? What evidence does Bishop Power have for his beliefs that I do not?

But let's be fair: it is not only religious beliefs that MPs should leave at the door. Anyone who believes in astrology, leprechauns, UFOs or homeopathy should leave that behind too. Then perhaps we can expect rational decision-making.

Who can tell when it is right to die ?
The Patient--end of story.
I'm with you King Hazza.
Dr Phillip Nitschke had in place a workable procedure which was veto'd by the God botherers led by Kevin Anderson.
Fortunately, Dr Nitschke has developed an alternative through 'exit international' and those poor suffering individuals who so choose can exit peacefully , in their own time ,by their own hand without the interference or intervention by religious moralists

The catholic church has never had a problem in imposing a right to die when that happens to be a side effect of extracting a conversion/confession/lesson for others.

Nor have other atrocities against humanity been in principle taken by the church as a true rebuke and a clear indication that their dogma not only fails to be robust, it fails to be adequate to even cursory examination.

Only once such deep failings in dogma as might lead to such cruelty are completely corrected might church dogma inform a genuine comment that could override an individuals wishes.

Rusty

The question was asked why any discussion on the subject of euthanasia always relates back to religion.
The answer is clear that it is the fear of a backlash from religious zealots throughout our communities that restrict the politicians from being honest with themselves, being honest with their constituents and being honest in stating their incompetence to effectively offer a vote on this subject, in any forum.
90% of politicians are weak, malleable people, anxious about their comfortable seat in parliament, their superannuation, their subservience to their leader for future promotion and as backbenchers in either of the larger parties, anxious about their endorsement approval by the party system, next time around.
They live in constant fear and it is this fear that well-organised religion exploits.

It totally controls their every waking moment.

Can you really imagine anyone in the coalition bucking the well-stacked Catholic heirarchy all sitting on the front bench as of today like the twelve disciples of George Pell, rosary beads in their pockets and voting honestly for the approval of euthanasia? Hardly.

The injustice in the whole story is that politicians , particularly these kind of politicians are allowed to be the arbiters on such a subject. Why? What has it to do with them at all? But since the first day of this country and including all the religious baggage we 'inherited' from the old country, religion has parasitically wormed its way into our laws and parliaments through non-secular education, tax-free status, funding for almost all religious denominations and our subservience to religious festivals and traditions, ad nauseum.

Let me quote part of the Messiah which says, "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way”
In this case, in political terms, “turn to his own way” for politicians means protecting their backsides, a full time career for our elected sheep.

Has anyone ever considered euthanasia as a voluntary personal decision for those who may wish to end it all, not from pain, not from loneliness, depression, or any other factor but because one has really had enough of life, who may see that they are contributing nothing or little of any value , perhaps just tired of life and wish, without fuss, to say goodbye to it all.

I hark back to a program by the ABC Four Corners program on this subject when a rational, happy group of older people were illegally making Nebutal while having a barbecue, a sane, sensible, contented group of people all anxious to call it a day but at a time of their choosing. The presenter on Four Corners crossed to the then President of the AMA, Rosanna Capolingua, a Perth GP and asked her to comment. Her comment was along the lines that “we must do something to stop such people being depressed”. What a stupid statement about people who were happy and content then and probably still are today but who just wanted to decide themselves when they left this earth.

With such prevailing medical opinions and understandings, why would anyone want GP’s involved in any determination of such an important decision, I ask you? A perfect example of the prevailing political and medical attitude in Australia.

The question as to whether the supporting numbers for euthanasia represent 85%, 70% or any other figure is really irrelevant. It certainly is a great majority, which probably clearly reflects that those who consider religious and political considerations being part of this determination should butt out, permanently.

nohj
I am not making any assumptions for other people only myself. It is an individual choice as no two people are the same and disease itself affects people differently.

runner
Human nature is not perfect but do you really think the young will start eyeing off their inheritances? You do have a poor view of human nature, and while warranted in some cases, I don't think the bonds between children and parents are that weak. How is that relevant when relatives are not involved in the decision making, it is up to the individual and their doctors.

We are talking about free choice. Didn't you once say you condoned the death penalty? So death is alright as long as you make the judgement.

With the appropriate medical advice and help, how dare anyone tell me I can't commit suicide. It is my life and I shall do with it as I choose.

'Human nature is not perfect but do you really think the young will start eyeing off their inheritances? You do have a poor view of human nature, and while warranted in some cases'

Pelican

There are 100000 mothers who agree to have their unborn babies murdered each year predominantly for convenience. Why suddenly does the nature change when it comes to oldies? Its a wonder some 'scientist' has not yet come up with the theory that someone over 75 is no longer a person.

Why is this a hard issue? we should be in charge of our own bodies. If someone is of sound mind then they should free to do watever they want to themselves. Why is it so hard for the Author to understand that he has not got the right to tell the rests of us how to live or die. He has got very right to control his own life why does he want to control others?

The thing I find most amusing is he is a member of a death cult who's head did a stone age version of "death by cop". In your opion killing yourself is a sin, that why your against it stop trying to tell us it's for any other reason.

I couldn't agree more with Rexw. The comments of Rosana Capolingua just show the arrogance of the medical community.
The answer is to simply allow the sale of the necessary drugs or means by which to kill oneself. I can't think of anything worse than trying to convince some panel of medical bureaucrats that I genuinely want to die. How humiliating. I would much rather use the rope.
Fortunately most of us have the brains and creativity to work out a reasonable method of suicide without needing the assistance of doctors or pharmacists or anyone else. We don't need to be formalising euthanasia. This is one area of life best left to the individual affected.

runner
We are talking about live people. Regarding abortion, there is a lot of disagreement about when 'life' begins which is why late term abortions are generally frowned apon because there is a point when a bunch of cells become a formed 'person'. It is a difficult one I grant you and it is an issue of conflicting 'rights' and weighing up those in the balance. Many people who decry abortion also decry single mothers so it is a no win situation for women, especially those who cannot support their child and there is not much support from society or governments particularly now that we have all become economic units rather than family units.

You have ignored your own 'draw the line' exception regarding life decisions in the death penalty?

This is not about abortion, the arguments and complexities are largely different.

Some people act as though this is going to be a compulsory requirement in the spirit of Logan's Run or Soylent Green. Distorting what this is about does not add any value to the debate.

"This is not about abortion, the arguments and complexities are largely different."

Quite correct. With euthanasia or suicide it is an adult with full capacity choosing to end their own life. With abortion it is an adult choosing to end someone else's life for their own convenience.
Abortion is more the equivalent of involuntary euthanasia.

Rhys Jones says:

"Fortunately most of us have the brains and creativity to work out a reasonable method of suicide without needing the assistance of doctors or pharmacists or anyone else. We don't need to be formalising euthanasia. This is one area of life best left to the individual affected"

I agree almost entirely, and would add that, if we seriously want to end our own lives, we should take responsibility for the action and not implicate doctors or others in a process which, at the very least, they will surely find extremely uncomfortable.

However, there are cases where people are physically unable to take their own lives. Others may no longer be mentally competent to indicate an informed preference for death, but have clearly signified in advance a preference for euthanasia in the case of (for example) severe dementia. In these, rare, cases, I believe euthanasia is justified

This piece by the "good" Bishop is so full of straw man arguments and untruths that no further comment should be necessary.

David

Do the religious people who are so against mercy killing {Voluntary Euthanasia} are against any wars that are being fought, or is this OK by them, it is not as far as I am concerned, it is still killing, not only soldiers but innocent civilians, where does their Bible belief of "Though Shalt Not Kill" come in, and why are they not demonstrating in the streets against this unnecessary killing of life, but come to me wanting to end my life, when suffering from loss of pain and dignity, these very same religious people want me to abide by their rules, I do not hold any belief from a fairy story written a long time ago, so let me decide my ending, and if I am wracked with pain I am sure I will not care where my money and estate will end up, I am sure that would not be my last thought if someone was out to grab it all, the only thought I would have would be to end this life quickly with a lethal injection, so once again stay out of my life all you religious people.

Ojnab

Pat - I sincerely hope you are going to drop dead or die quickly in a catastrophic manner. I say that as a practising Christian believing 'medicine' has been trying to 'play God' far too long. Many unfortunate souls linger painfully, treated with every death defying 'weapon' available, suffering a fate far worse than death. The lengths 'medicine' goes to at times to 'save' people with extreme disabilities, elderly folk in the clutch of dementia and so on is morally indefensible.

My family struggles to care for my elderly father who suffers advanced dementia and physical failure. With little control over bladder, bowel and motor function, he can barely stand and walk a few metres with assistance. Help is needed with EVERY aspect of daily life. There is little dignity or quality of life left even though we try to keep him comfortable and happy as possible. While he generally knows and responds to his family we are reluctant to place him in care - even though the effort involved is taking it's toll on his main carers, his elderly wife and daughter. WE HOPE HE DIES SOON! Because we love him ....

To this effect - though my father doesn't have an advanced health directive, we have met with the family Dr and expressed unified desire that in life threatening illness he will recieve palliative treatment only. While our Dr agrees, there is no guarantee that some 'hero' will not decide otherwise if he gets admitted to a hospital.

All adults have the right to refuse treatment for whatever ails us - with exception of mental illness. (Involuntary treatment may be imposed on people who may harm others or themselves.) If I, for example, were to decline treatment for heart disease or cancer, conditions which would, barring a miracle, bring about my demise, that's my choice.

Similarly I support anyone who wants an assisted exit from this life when terminal illness has become unbearable. THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS! I only hope never to be in that situation

Hopefully, one day the control freaks will leave people alone to plan how to live & die as they see fit whilst still in a fit stage.

Dear Mr. Pat Power,

Unfortunately the stricture of economic rationalism has to be observed in any of our circumstances; hence I disagree with those that are reticent to admit that euthanasia is reducing the argument to an economic level.

I remember that when I was a child the world population was less than two billion and electricity had not reached my town of 15,000 souls which then sported only two automobiles. Those souls have now triplicate.

This population explosion has been brought about not by miracle but by an excess in the number of births over that of deaths and the near doubling of average life length.

Now each day I cost more than ‘the average’ in energy.

A Clare Holland house may be for you, Sir, but, if I can’t get a pill, given the chance, I will have to jump

skeptic, "I disagree with those that are reticent to admit that euthanasia is reducing the argument to an economic level."

Agreed and that has ramifications for seniors in an environment where:

- all agree that aged care system is broken, but there is no political will to fix it;

- the vulnerable in the community are sinking further and further into poverty, hastened by such 'initiatives' as user pays and ramped up government taxes and charges;

- there are scant funds for palliative care and no increases in sight;

- politicians regularly blame seniors and 'baby boomers' for their own inadequate planning and profligate wastage of public funds and encourage stereotyping and intergenerational jealousy; and

- despite the very obvious discrimination against seniors in the community, for example in public employment, they have no effective representation.

The very sad reality is that other fundamentals such as the abysmal town planning in Australia (and very poor population decisions are part of that) also discriminate against anyone who is not in the youthful prime of life, without any restrictions on their mobility.

While I support the concept of euthanasia I am unconvinced it has anywhere near the support for it that is claimed by the Greens. For starters, such surveys are often poorly designed. Restrictions in the use of results are poorly understood and usually not quoted. It is likely that many of those completing the 'surveys' were unlikely to be personally affected, had very little understanding of the problems of the ill and aged and were prescribing for other, unknown and anonymous individuals - not the best way to collect adequate, informed opinions.

It also crosses my mind that the political interests who are active in promoting euthanasia, specifically the Greens, have been noticeably absent in calling for improvement to the aged care system. Surely the first priority should be those basic improvements to sustain the health and quality of life of seniors.

An ombudsman or equal rights commissioner for the aged is needed desperately. Trust the Greens with your Grandad's welfare, not likely!

I have a horror

Of nursing homes. Pill better

Than hara kiri

The Soylent Green solution.

Don't let them get near those nursing homes, eh Shintaro?

Why is everyone assuming that it is predominantly the elderly and residents of nursing homes who would ask for euthanasia were it legal?

Most elderly people actually die at home or in a hospital actually.
At any one time there is only 5% of the elderly actually residing in nursing homes. The bulk of them live in their own home, with relatives, or in a retirement village.

I have nursed many, many people in their own home, or in hospital, who have begged to'be put down', or 'not even a dog would be forced to live in this way'.

Yes, there are deaths that are very peaceful, but there are also many that are not.

Australia has some of the best hospices and community palliative care teams in the world.

Even so, people still suffer as they die.

I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.

"Crass" or not, the economics of obstinately keeping worn out and diseased old bodies alive after their use by dates has to be considered. If a person's body wants to die and the owner has no objection, what's the problem? If someone's quality of life has deteriorated to such an extent that they want to die, what's the problem? Even if someone has existential reasons for wanting to die, it shouldn't be a crime and might even be considered a case for medical assistance if the patient can persuade a few experts..
Death is the most banal thing there is in life, but like life's other deep mysteries, we make a fetish of it a) by sacralising it and b) by keeping it under wraps. We're all far too shielded from death in this society of "ordered freedom," from the abattoirs to the operating theatres to the palliative-care wards. Kids today never so much as see a chicken killed and death is reverentially dreaded out of all proportion with its common as mud occurrence. That is in the seemly and wealthy West.
It is immoral and immodest to preserve life beyond its usefulness and beyond reason while children starve elsewhere.
Let's work on immortality once we've put a stop to unnecessary infant mortality, and once we've secured a half a dozen more planets to spend our long retirement years on.
Longevity is overrated, an imposition on the living when it defies all reason, and a burden to the infirm when they would prefer the blessed release of death.

Not so Cornflower. The Greens released an Aged Care Policy in 2010 with positive views from within the Aged Care Sector (see 3rd link below).

http://greensmps.org.au/agedcare
http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-launch-comprehensive-aged-care-reform-agenda
http://www.agedcareinsite.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Breaking+News&idArticle=17612

This debate is heading towards the absurd. The Greens and other advocates are not advocating the 'right' to die by individual choice as a 'solution' to ageing population. Give me a break.

I agree with Cornflower's observation that baby boomers are being scapegoated (wedge politics) for the failure of adequate planning by governments, but that does not assume a secret agenda of economic rationalisation by euthanasia advocates.

The baby boomers represent a large voting population and if the aged care sector is inadequate votes will be lost.

pelican,

Thank you. The Greens' policy is recent and the party is to be commended for taking up the challenge in a difficult area of policy and where the major parties have performed abysmally for decades.

As you would probably recognise from what I have written in previous threads relating to aged care policy, there is much in the new Greens' policy I agree with. Ageing is a natural part of life and one should not be punished for it. It will be possible to discuss the detail when it is fleshed out after the Productivity Commission's final report. While on that subject, the Greens are right to criticise the major parties for using reviews to stall when there are very obvious improvements that are known and can be implemented right away.

Many will have reservations about the likely future where seniors pay for their aged care, with their home included in the asset test and the expectation that they will take out a reverse mortgage if necessary for their contribution. This interview with National Seniors chief executive Michael O’Neill, is interesting,

http://radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/productivity-commission-report-aged-care/

Grey nomads joke that they are spending the kids' inheritance, but little do they realise that government is planning to take it anyway.

In a previous job I dealt with many people who were angry at the decreasing standards of aged care as shown in your link cornflower.

The main problem appears to be finding qualified and suitable staff to undertake these very low paid jobs. Even the higher paid nurses earn less than their hospital counterparts which does not say much for the value we place on care for the ageing.

" Ageing is a natural part of life and one should not be punished for it."

Yes, and unfortunately the signals are that ageing is fodder for politicians in attempts to force a higher retirement age, taking away of assets, poor indexation of pensions/super etc. I was brought up to respect my elders and find it very difficult to digest the finger pointing at the elderly due to mismanagement by governments.

Michael O'Neill said that the system has been taken over by regulators, contract packages and red tape. Also, consumer choice is lacking. He is right.

It is yet another policy area where government is attempting to slough off its accountabilities to private contractors. There will be thousands of highly paid bureaucrats involved in 'contract management' and demanding endless reports to 'monitor' from Canberra.
Canberra's record in contract management is poor.

Workers
Unfairly, nurses in gerontology/aged care are paid less. More tradition than anything else. The training of doctors needs to be improved (skills and attitudinal).

It is clear blue sky for the Greens if they promote direct/real consultation for seniors in decisions that affect them. A separate administering authority is a good idea.

It is another area where a whole of government approach is needed because decisions being made in town planning, transport and so on impact markedly on seniors and on other vulnerable members of society. Neither of the major parties is inclined to treat seniors with respect and they are certainly not willing to earn their votes through effective representation.

Interesting that supporters of war, forced imposition of democracy, suppression of minorities, incarceration of substance abusers/mentally ill, decreased funding for mentally ill and the elderly, anti-drug prohibitionists/drug war atrocities, incarceration of refugees and unwarranted fear of same, racist policies, homophobia, opposition to equal rights, a woman's free choice and the control of education in the name of religio-superstition also oppose euthanasia.

It is a very curious thing that so-called "pro-lifers" [who are actually pro a form of 2nd rate existence], demand to control our birth, quality of life - which they suppress - and insist we cling to undignified and agonising death thralls that via some bizarre reasoning, equip them with bonus points for the hereafter they wrongly believe exists.

Who wouldn't want the choice to die?

As for claiming depression and other distressing illnesses are not worthy of the choice to die, I find this perhaps the most repugnant of all. When someone has lived 40-50 years with Major Depressive Disorders, Obsessions, Confusion, Imperfect memory and worse they indeed have a right to decide when they tire.

What trashy rot to argue there is 'treatment".