It's always easy to detect religiously-motivated objections to medical or political policies: they're the ones whose reasons don't make any sense. It's no longer acceptable to object in public merely because some Sky Daddy told you to, so religious people feel they have to emulate the rest of us and try to provide real logical reasons. But they haven't had much practice, the poor dears, so they're not terribly good at it.

<Unfortunately governments must make decisions about allocating finite resources; that’s the nature of a modern economy.>

"If you really want to unleash economic rationalism on the frail aged, give them (government) that option."
Tony Abbott in a debate on euthanasia in 2007, asking whether a future government might choose not to spend tens of thousands of dollars on palliative care for a patient if that patient had the option of a dignified end (euthanasia).

It is concerning that euthanasia is being pushed so urgently in a country like Australia which does not have a tradition of valuing the old and respecting them. It is even more concerning that such priority is being given to euthanasia - which is now openly suggested as a way of reducing budget outlays for the aged - when successive governments have shied away from fixing the broken aged care system and mental health becomes a priority only at election time.

"People only opt for death when they are desperate, lonely, depressed and in pain. As a society we should be addressing those problems. Killing doesn't cure pain — but killing the sufferer is certainly cheaper."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/life-will-get-a-dollar-value/2007/01/29/1169919271436.html

The word euthanasia is not ideal. It's the right to end your own life and to receive assistance if you can't do it by yourself.

We call it assisted suicide in the Liberal Democratic Party (www.ldp.org.au) and we dispute the left's claim on it. It's simply a question of liberty.

DavidL,

There seems to be some confusion between:

* suicide - the right of a person to take their own life, with nobody else being involved;

* assisted suicide - where the involvement of someone else in bringing about a person's death, with the assent of that person, is to be decriminalised;

* [as I understand the term] euthanasia - the right of someone else to kill a person, you or me, without your or my full and conscious consent.

If this break-down is not satisfactory, can we at least be clear about what we mean by the term 'euthanasia' ?

And before anybody throws God at me, I must declare that I have always been an atheist and a socialist, and that I expect to remain one until I go. Hopefully, with no-one else involved.

We're not all puppets out here, in the real world :)

Joe

As I hear it Loudmouth, "euthanasia" is nothing but assisted suicide at request of the patient (either direct communication or by written will made beforehand)- using specialized, efficient killing drugs.
And I would be quite certain, regardless of what Abbot woofs out (I doubt he ever knows what he even says)- that any euthanasia system would follow those principles.

That being the case, it should be allowed.
Simply make it that a patient MUST request to be euthanised, and ONLY when that happens- a practitioner will show up, quickly set up the euthanasia-administering device, and either hand the patient the switch- or if the patient is incapable, ask the patient if they still want to go ahead, and if they say yes, the doctor will do the act themselves.
That way, it is certain to be committed at absolutely nobody else's discretion- definitely not a politicians- but the patient him/herself.

Bottom line is, pallative care should be made effective enough so that people don't want to kill themselves out of pain alone- but the ultimate say should still fall to the patient.

As someone who has brushed with death from cancer twice, I do not wish to be kept alive, no matter how wonderful the palliative care may be, when I have no quality of life, can't think, can't talk, can't listen, can't connect with my loved ones, can't meditate, can't take care of my bodily functions, and am in a constant and sickened stupor from drugs that are supposedly alleviating my pain.

It isn't only pain that makes someone decide they've had enough. It's lack of quality of life. And it's feeling too tired. And it's gently and peacefully accepting that things aren't going to improve, and you are very happy to let go and move into the next phase, whatever that might be.

I'm not afraid of dying. I am afraid of not being allowed to die when I know it's my time and I want to go.

I want my house wired by qualified skilled people, and repairs and decommissioning to be similarly done in a safe, competant manner.

So too my car repairs, and the decommissioning of complex devices such that there is a poor way and a good way.

Dying alone is a poor way. Being an unwilling recipient of heroic measures is a poor way. Having ones helpless body at the mercy of people who constitutionally believe that it is "right" to override your wishes is a poor way.

Just as being sick alone is poor, receiving innappropriate or botched treatment is poor, or having unwanted treatments cunducted without consent is poor.

Whatever the bodily process is, there is no reason why patient rather than church should have the say. That the church may desire to desperatately clutch the power of life-and-death is *not* a reason, as they have so botched this in the past as to call all dogma and "scripture" into extreme disrepute. There is no reason why the technical details should not be done competantly by suitably qualified personnel, nor why friends and family should not attend, as they might an unassisted death.

Rusty

...no reason why patient rather than church should *not* have a say....

Rusty

Hi Hazza,

[Sorry for following you around :) ]

'As I hear it Loudmouth, "euthanasia" is nothing but assisted suicide at request of the patient (either direct communication or by written will made beforehand)- using specialized, efficient killing drugs.'

That's okay then.

Only .......

* How do you distinguish between 'assisted suicide' and murder ? If somebody dies in the presence of another person, how do you KNOW they have suicided ? If suicide were completely legal, one would not need a note or a completed Stat. Dec., one would just do it. But if someone else is present, doctor or relative or whatever, some sort of written record would be vital - and so the 'suicide' situation would be very different in law.

* And why does the discussion so often slide from 'assisted suicide' towards the killing off of people who are not fully conscious of what they are doing, or on financial grounds, or [most heart-wrenchingly and compassionately] because of the poor quality of someone's life, as judged by someone else ?

Nowhere near as simple as it seems, Hazza .......

Persuasive argument, David, and others here too. As pointed out by Briar Rose for example, it is clearly nonsensical and inhumane to be forcibly kept alive "when I have no quality of life, can't think, can't talk, can't listen, can't connect with my loved ones, can't meditate, can't take care of my bodily functions, and am in a constant and sickened stupor from drugs that are supposedly alleviating my pain".

I do however have some reservations about legalising euthanasia. I see the 'slippery slope' argument as a compelling one when it comes to this issue.

There will obviously be strong measures put into place to begin with which will protect individuals from being euthanized against their will. My concern is that decades down the track these safeguards might not necessarily have the strength they would in the early days. Several current trends I feel will converge and add to this weakening.

The first is that health and hospital costs will continue to spiral as more and more expensive medical interventions are developed. At the same time, increasing numbers of people are going to be living very long lives. As well, the wealth disparity that has opened up over the last few decades will only gather pace, as will the entrenchment of the user-pays principle in part responsible. The convergence of these trends will place enormous pressure on our health systems and the losers as always will be those who cannot afford to pay the high costs that remaining healthy will inevitably entail.

Once euthanasia is long bedded down and has become the norm, people in this situation, particularly those without a strong and supportive family, will face pressure to take the euthanasia option even though they may in fact still have a will to live. It is easy to dismiss this possibility now, but in fifty years time I think this will be the legacy of euthanasia. For those of independent means, the option will be a source of comfort. For increasing numbers of old and poor I fear it will become an unwanted pressure.

@ David Swanton

//If liberty is being threatened, by organised religion through religious politicians, then all free-thinking people should rally against the threat.//

Characterizing religious people (Christians no doubt) as a 'THREAT' is itself the greatest "threat" to freedom ..and we need to rally against it.

Our parliament does not open with the Lords Prayer for 'no reason'.. it didn't happen in a historical vaccuum.

There's a saying "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved?"

and needless to say.. it was not God.. maybe it was you and others of a similar mindset?

Bronwyn,

The slippery slope argument is a furphy. It has not happened in other countries where legal voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide exists. Unless of course, if one takes notice of propagandised reports from religious opponents. Their sole argument is that a god gives live and only a god can take life. Fine for them but imposing that on 80% of the population is not your call or theirs. Imposing an idea by deceit is outrageous.

Although, you may have a point with the slippery slope argument. I know the speed limit is around 100 Kph now but what about people who want to get there quicker for economical and other reasons. It’s sure to slippery slope and zip up to 300 Kph before we know it. And what I’m waiting for is the offence of shoplifting to be elevated from present sanctions until we slippery slope sentences and fire offenders at the sun in rockets to get rid of them.

The slippery slope argument is, as I said a furphy and only believed by those of religious persuasion or those persuaded by their dodgy arguments. It is understandable that some people are sucked into this non-reason for not having legal voluntary euthanasia, as it has become a mindless mantra pulled out of the hat as often as possible.

My advice would be; don’t be one of those gullible enough to believe it.

If and when any of us are ever in unremitting pain, without quality of life with a terminal illness, wouldn’t it be better to know we were not responsible for preventing our own peaceful death.

None of this matters too much, except for those in the unfortunate situation right now, as parliamentarians cannot forever go against the wishes of so many.

David

The article is very true on what most of Australians want regarding Voluntary Eithanasia but is denied by religious and members of Parliament who are guided by their religious beliefs, I wish to die the way I want to die,not the way Julia Gillard and others may want me to die, but I daresay she would opt for VE not having religious convictions, most wealthy people through money and the right Doctor can have Voluntary Euthanasia if they request it,and no questions asked, as an example King George V, there are one or two Australians I could name as well.
The only concern I have with the article is the reference to Dr. Philip Nitschke, I have never received any information from him as to how to end my life and I daresay most of other Australians haven't either unless you are a member of Exit.
There are Voluntary Euthanasia Societies in each state who work diligently towards having VE passed through Parliament, these people were not mentioned in the article, these are the people who hand out pamphlets and generally advise people face to face on their rights as the law now stands regarding VE and what the future may hold for them when VE is passed,the writer should include all VE Societies not just PN who by his methods will get the most press publicity, forgeting all others.

Hi Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

No, not everybody who has misgivings about euthanasia, even about its definition, is a puppet of the Pope. I'm an atheist, always have been, always will be, and I have misgivings. I certainly suspect that a slippery slope is at work in the protean definitions of suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

For example, the discussion too easily slides from open and conscious suicide [fine with me], to the removal of the extreme elderly, Alzheimer's patients, etc., and from one's own volition to necessity (as perceived by others) [not fine with me].

Is this your only rationale ? That anybody against 'x' is a Papist puppet ? Try other arguments :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

May I suggest you study up on places where LVE and MAS exists before you run off on your high horse with imaginings of what might happen?

You appear to have the gene that humans are bad people just waiting to kill granny, the same as the warped view held by religions about original sin.

You can have an opinion about objection to these compassionate types of legislation but you are pitting yourself against an informed 80% of the population who want it. You will not prevent it happening and you will not be required to facilitate yourself by benefiting by it if you are ever in the unfortunate position that a minority of people find themselves in.

And if you read back on my post you will see that I said, “It is understandable that some people are sucked into this non-reason for not having legal voluntary euthanasia”. Notice I said some.

I didn’t say all.

David

This is an argument that keeps going around in circles. Why? Because the answer is always the same.

A free vote means nothing and we all know it. So any legislation in any forum, anywhere, will end up with the same answer. The Catholic grandstanders, trying to curry favour with the Georgie Pell brigade of mindless sheep will trumpet loud and clear that they will not be discarding their religious beliefs, ingrained since three year old, to vote for a humane piece of legislation. Score = 10 points from George, a supporting comment from the pulpit, ergo, next election is safe.

This takes care of most of the opposition front bench with the failed priest Abbott leading the way. His ideas on free thinking Catholicicm are well known. There is no such thing.

The Greens, generally progressive so most of the votes there.

Labor is hard to tell with right wingers, left wingers, centre-left, centre-right, Zionists supporters with Gillard riding shotgun over Danby, Emerson and others and backbench also-rans watching their backs, trying desperately not to offend anyone, anywhere.
They will abstain. Safer that way.

As for the Independents, you won't hear a word because it is not a party vote, so you won't have a division, so they won't be important in the result. Now that is a blessing, indeed.

Don't be dismayed. Other countries have worse problems than us. In the US both the Senate and the Congress defer to Israel and its overt agents, AIPAC, affectionately known as the "off-site Congress" and covert operatives, under every rock before they can make any decision, so a 'free vote', is not part of the newly revised Constitution any more per courtesy of the Bush/Cheney Amendments.

So while so many of us applaud the agitators for asking for a free vote on this important subject, we are not mature enough in Australia to give it the value it deserves. We'll wait until the US shows us the way, as with everything else we do.

hey Bronwyn...I'm trying to get an answer from you please about something.

When we disagree....do you 'hate' me ?

Hi Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

I suppose a bit of ad hominem never hurt anybody, I can certainly take it. However, apart from your slagging of my genes, and your attempt to browbeat me with your '80 % of the entire world's population', do you actually have anything else ?

No, I don't believe that all 'humans are bad people just waiting to kill granny', but then again, there ARE laws against murder - and if people were all so angelic, as in your heaven, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., we wouldn't need laws against that either, would we ? Call me a sceptic :)

As for numbers: in Egypt, 92 % of the population believes that women should be stoned to death for adultery. Whose side would you be on, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

I can see you don’t wish to discuss the subject with anything but your own ideas which so far don’t make that much sense.

I didn’t say 80% or the world and it is deceptive of you to suggest I did. If you don’t have a proper argument, may I suggest not to make one up.

Yes, Egypt is hard on the women in the population but that’s a religious culture for you. What is your point about this? We are not them. Are you finding this hard to work out?

You might not mind wasting your own time with flippant obfuscation but I don’t like mine being frittered away in this fashion.

If you start making sense I will respond, if you don’t I won’t.

I’m sure you can understand that.

There are dreadfully sick sane thinking human beings out there who desperately want to end their suffering. You seem impervious to this but the majority of the population is not.

I will help get this law into action right up until the day I die. Why would I do this? It is because my conscience won’t let me do anything else.

David

No problem Loudmouth

"* How do you distinguish between 'assisted suicide' and murder ?"
Any doctors and nurses present when the patient requested to die could act as witnesses to confirm a patient wanted to die- along with the practitioner him/herself who would ask for confirmation- which would then no longer be a case of murder.
Written will would need to be confirmed in much the same way an inheritance Will would need to, specifically stating that if in (whatever incapacitated states) and incapable of communication, their will to die would be assumed, based on the will, and the practitioner would be summoned by the Will instead.
Without these, there would be nothing to summon a practitioner with, and therefore, no intent to die, legally.
It would be a lot harder to pass a murder off as euthanasia, than an accident or natural causes, because one would require permission and a third party.
(So long as either the deed can only be done by a practitioner with a license).

"And why does the discussion so often slide from 'assisted suicide' towards the killing off of people who are not fully conscious of what they are doing, or on financial grounds, or [most heart-wrenchingly and compassionately] because of the poor quality of someone's life, as judged by someone else ?"
Because the people who make those arguments are simply dishonest and would rather make up scary false scenarios of 'evil death factories judging your right to life and killing you for profit run by crazy death-obsessed Doctor Dooms', than admit they simply don't like it for personal reasons. Easier to make up a lie than expect other people to put aside their own personal needs to suit ones' prejudices about how people should behave.
And of course, those people might just be totally paranoid, and waiting for the Illuminati to start a thinly-disguised nazi-population-control scheme any moment- but these people don't want to admit that being their real reason because they'd be laughed at.
So, standing on an indefensible position, they make up a different one.

David (from the Atheist Foundation)

Thanks for responding to my post but with respect I think you missed my point.

"Although, you may have a point with the slippery slope argument. I know the speed limit is around 100 Kph now but what about people who want to get there quicker for economical and other reasons. It’s sure to slippery slope and zip up to 300 Kph before we know it. And what I’m waiting for is the offence of shoplifting to be elevated from present sanctions until we slippery slope sentences and fire offenders at the sun in rockets to get rid of them."

You chided Joe for his 'flippant obfuscation', but I could well level a similar accusation at you. These examples mock the serious point I was making. You need to rebut my slippery slope example with some decent argument. To begin with, you probably need to read it properly. My impression is you've seen the words 'slippery slope' and jumped into standard attack mode.

"The slippery slope argument is a furphy. It has not happened in other countries where legal voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide exists."

I was projecting decades ahead. As far as I know, no country anywhere has had legal voluntary euthanasia in place for more than one decade, let alone four or five. So again, with respect, your reference to other countries is irrelevant.

"The slippery slope argument is, as I said a furphy and only believed by those of religious persuasion or those persuaded by their dodgy arguments."

I too am an atheist, so am not in the least bit persuaded by religious argument. I'm not arguing from the usual right-to-life perspective. I'm arguing from the point of view of the many millions of elderly poor who decades down the track will feel an unspoken but very real pressure to exit the planet before they want to.

I'm not arguing against euthanasia. I'm just pointing out the trade off. Increased freedom for some will mean less for others. It usually does and if we're being honest it needs to be acknowledged.

AGIR

"hey Bronwyn...I'm trying to get an answer from you please about something. When we disagree....do you 'hate' me ?"

I'm not sure what you're driving at here I'm sorry. What's this about?

I try hard not to 'hate' you as a poster, but I do 'hate' a lot of what you have to say. And you know that.

An excellent article. I still don't understand why we can't have a national vote on euthanasia when we next have an election?

After we spell out all the legal/medical safeguards needed before such legislation could be considered, why not let the informed majority rule?

What are the politicians afraid of? Are they afraid of losing the religious vote?

With legal euthanasia, I am sure it will only be suitably qualified medical practitioners who will be able to administer the drugs requested, because no one else is licensed to give these drugs.

So anyone not sure of the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia should be aware that someone who dies in the company of a related, non-medical person should be considered with suspicion alright.

My view of euthanasia involves patients who have previously made their views about euthanasia known to their trusted loved ones, and their Doctor, and that they have previously signed some sort of legal medical directive outlining what sort of life or death they will not tolerate, and under what circumstances they would wish to have their life medically terminated.

There should also be some other independent medical authority who would oversee these euthanasia wishes, and have the final say as to whether all the criteria has been met before allowing the final procedure to take place.

Surely that should be enough to legally and medically allow someone to be euthanased?

Many people seem to forget that it isn't only the elderly who die from terminal illnesses. There are many sad cases where children, teenagers, young and middle-aged adults are terminally ill.

Of these, there will be a significant number who will not be able to be assisted to have a 'peaceful' death unfortunately.
This happens all too often, despite all the best prayers, and all the best palliative care measures available.

I should know. I have cared for many of them over a 30 year nursing career.

Walk for a while in my shoes, and then see how you feel about euthanasia.

Bronwyn,

I really did not miss your point at all. Slippery slope implies that sometime in the future, an expansion of an original idea in a negative fashion will take place. It does not matter if that is next year or in a hundred years.

It is very noble of you attempting to protect those who you say would be disadvantaged by such laws. Noble yes, but not right. The Netherlands has had voluntary euthanasia for many years, which was legalised about a decade ago. It shows no signs of being abused. Religious interests beg to differ but we should expect that. They have no expertise in ethics as is continually demonstrated.

That I understood what you were saying should have been clear by the examples I gave in other areas of the law.

The very wrong part of the slippery slope argument is in its absolutism. Because there are no guarantees that anything humans do will ever be perfect means that we would never do anything. Legal voluntary euthanasia and Doctor assisted suicide as practices in other countries comes about as close to an absolute ideal as we will ever achieve as a race.

And missing in the equation is that most cases of LVE happen days, week or maybe a few months from the point where death would be ‘natural’. The big saving with LVE is that a person does not to take their own life well before a ‘natural’ death just in case they are not capable later on. LVE actually extends the life of people in many cases. It also gets rid of the botched attempts by people taking their own lives and making the situation worse.

(Continued next post)

Dear Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

Sorry, I was trying to be a smart-@rse - you did write: ' ... an informed 80% of the population', although in my defense, I plea that your characterisation of the superior 80 % as 'informed' relative to the presumably 'uninformed' 20 % does seem to be a bit too nuanced. My point about 92 % of Egyptians supporting the stoning of women for adultery was an attempt to put majority votes into perspective. You haven't dealt with that yet.

Hazza,

Thank you for that legal position. But why do you then go into a rant against anybody who raises reservations ? In a perfect world - where no evil could ever be - you might have a point but do you seriously assert (and Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., as well, which I suppose I should join - but I don't think they would have me now, I'd be counted as a heretic), that nobody ever thinks of knocking off their too-aged but asset-rich relations ?

It is, after all, the stuff of film and fiction. Zola's 'Therese Raquin' comes to mind. 'Earth' too, I vaguely remember. How often do people inherit and/or do elderly relatives conveniently pass away in Dickens and Trollope and (maybe?) Hardy ? Marieke as well as Thomas ? I'm not suggesting that throwing momma off the train is a daily occurrence, but it resonates enough with most of us to be a plausible and amusing notion.

As an atheist, I've always (well, say fifteen years) been puzzled by the logic of euthanasia supporters: if atheists like me believe that we each have one and only one life, then surely treasure it ? And if I were a believer in an afterlife, a heavenly, timeless and angelic afterlife (even if it sounds mind-numbingly boring to an atheist: I think I would be trying to organise an Egyptian-style revolt against God, just to relief the unrelenting niceness of it all), what would this one life on earth matter if one had an eternal, and better, life afterwards ?

[TBC]

(Continued from last post)

Am I a bit touchy on this subject? Too dam right I am as voluntary euthanasia organisations and people like me have been fighting for many decades to have it legally recognised. It has been financially costly to me as I have to travel hundreds of kilometres to join protests, keep up to date with as much information as possible, spend an inordinate amount of time on blogs like this and put up with argument that come from either religion or non informed whim. Generally speaking, the latter has done no real study on the matter. Some in the latter category feel they are correct in opposition intuitively. Intuition can be a poor judge, the best example being that the Sun appears to be moving east to west across the sky. This convinced people for hundreds of thousands of years. But studying the physics showed it was wrong.

If more people would actually do some investigation on voluntary euthanasia, let their parliamentarians know the results of that and demand LVE be legalised, it would be. The muddying-of-the-waters with this nonsense slippery slope argument caries with it a lot of blame for political tardiness on this matter.

Using analogous argument, such as if the speed limit suddenly zoomed up to 300 kilometres per hour and the death and injury toll became astronomical, the law would be changed. The same would happen with LVE. Humanity is not as evil as religion states. A future tyrannical government is a non-argument. It would make its own laws.

80% of people accept the ‘purported’ risks with LVE, there is no credible evidence there are abuses where it is operational already, it is voluntary and it is a sign of mature societal compassion to have it.

(Continued next post)

(Continued from last post)

I despair that religious leaders (Not many of the flock) and a few of those who are not religious are opposed to such a commonsense law. The same sentiment we use for our companion animals when cure is hopeless and death is the kindest and only option, is overridden in the case of the human animal by irrational argument.

A system of legal voluntary euthanasia is not only the correct path to take. It is a test of our ability to face death squarely; instead of placing it in the too hard basket in the hope that it will all go away. Get used to it, we all die eventually.

Any of us could end up in the position where an imaginary god or medical science will not help. No one is ‘special’ and the thought of ‘it won’t happen to me’ shows the stupid side of a head-in-the-sand humanity.

David

Loudmouth,

How could I possibly know world stats on those wanting to have access to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia? No one would know that. Don’t be daft, you know I was addressing the Australian situation.

I am not arguing ad populum. I am arguing it is ethical for LVE to be available and 80% of the population agree. Egypt has a strong religious culture where women are second class citizens. This is irrelevant.

I expected you to start making sense and not digging your hole of obscurantism deeper.

I was wrong.

Of course, you realise, trying to influence people to your way of thinking without a credible argument, helps those who would impose restriction on legal voluntary euthanasia for everyone else.

I personally wouldn’t be too proud of that.

David

Dear Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

Wow, that's some appeal to authority. How could any genuine atheist stand outside, or argue with, THAT ?

Why do you ask 'How could I possibly know world stats on those wanting to have access to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia? No one would know that. Don’t be daft, you know I was addressing the Australian situation.'

I didn't ask you to. Straw man, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. :)

I'm not opposed to LVE if it is defined and monitored properly: I even support it enthusiastically in the case of some atheists ;)

It seems that this may be why even suicide is not legalised yet: if another person is present and someone 'suicides', how do you know it wasn't murder ? A note would help, but the absence of one coinciding with the presence of another person would raise all sorts of suspicions, which may be completely unjustified, of course. Presumably there would still have to be an inquest before a doctor would sign out on the cause of death ?

So the killing of another person must, as Hazza has detailed, be accompanied by all manner of safeguards: it's the person's only life, after all, kaput, there's no 'after'.

On your perfect world, Atrheist Foundation of Australia Inc., of course there would be no need for such laws. Perhaps there would be no need for any laws at all, once we have brought about heaven on earth, perhaps through Utopian socialism (that might do it). But even now, even in the most democratic of countries, I believe they still have legal systems, court systems, correctional systems, penal systems.

And the taking of a life is not as trivial as shoplifting a packet of chewing gum or flitting off from a petrol pump without paying. I'm told such dreadful crimes occasionally occur, but I would have to see it to believe it, society is so pure and clean nowadays: the thought of killing someone probably never enters people's minds.

[TBC]

Joe

Sorry to detain you further, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc.,

[continued]

I'm puzzled: why do you want to take people's lives so earnestly ? What is the attraction of campaigning for LVE for many years ? Why don't you talk even a little about palliative care, or relevant therapies ?

Choose life, not death, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., when you have to make a choice. We are all entitled to our one small flash of eternity. My darling wife was taken too young, in the full bloom of her creativity. If there was a god, do you think I wouldn't kiss whatever passes for his @rse for just one more day ? One more hour ? Have you ever lost anybody or this all just a gigantic game for you ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

You have no idea what an appeal to ‘authority’ is do you. You meant an appeal to numbers. Even so, you say you are not opposed to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia in a strange kind of manner. So that is all good.

We are not discussing personal suicide here. In part, we are talking about controlled suicide, which is totally different.

The safeguards in legislation of the countries where LVE and physician assisted suicide exist. Have you read about them? Have you read about the safeguards in Australian legislation? Obviously not.

Utopia is not achievable possibly and I am not promoting it. That is a dumb thing to say.

You forgot my example of the speed limit. Deary me, how remiss of you. More people die through car accident that LVE will ever equal. At a 300 kilometre speed limit that number would treble. What do you find difficult with this argument?

Palliative care can only go so far even if it were to be improved dramatically. You would know that if you had bothered to read up on it. Of course, you would rather just make quasi-smart comment than doing anything constructive.

What a stupid thing to say. “Choose life, not death, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc”. This rubbish has nothing to do with the topic. It is said out of desperation because you are making a fool of yourself. Possibly, no, really, its time for you to stop. It is becoming noticeable.

I am not the one playing a game, don’t look now but it is you. A very, very ignorant and non helpful game. You cannot recover any dignity in this, it is time for you to depart and think.

Have you ever done that before?

David

Loudmouth- simple answer from me, I see euthanasia as a basic human right that we all may need to be able to count on if life goes downhill, and grow annoyed when people conjure up the most baloney scenarios to keep it banned.

As for treasuring life, of course- but some people don't exactly consider waiting to die in a hospital bed to be 'living', and would rather skip that part if they could.
And I can assure you, passing prolonged periods of time hooked on IV is not much fun.

Forgive me, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., but I would have thought that using the respected name of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. on a thread like this would intend to carry some sort of authority. Ergo, an appeal to authority.

So it's all pretty straight forward then:

* personal suicide

* controlled suicide (by whom ? the suicider ? others ?)

* physician-assisted suicide

* LVE

Can you please distinguish between each of these ?

As for Utopias and the non-essentiality of laws, you DID write above: '.... there are no guarantees that anything humans do will ever be perfect ....'

then get stuck into me for suggesting something similar:

'You appear to have the gene that humans are bad people just waiting to kill granny...'

We're both right. There are no perfect societies. That's why we need laws and penalties for breaches of laws, including - not just laws against petty theft or swearing in a public place - but laws which inconveniently may involve the death of someone.

I fully concur with Hazza and Suze that very stringent conditions should be placed on anybody involved in the death of another person. But part of that would surely be a firming up of definition of the terms above, and of 'euthanasia' ?

Value life, Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc., it's all we have. The one and only. Leave the notion of 'afterlife', or another life, to the religious fruit-cakes. Life IS worth living, don't devalue it.

Joe

Loudmouth,

When something is true, an argument from authority is not fallacious. Such is the case when I state 80% want LVE, which is an about figure supported by consistent survey. When Church leaders state they are opposed to LVE when surveys of their own adherents disagree, then that is a call to authority. Do you understand now?

I think you are creating bunny holes with this but, ah well, let me explain.

My reference to “controlled suicide” was another way of stating physician assisted suicided. That is when a doctor supplies the appropriate drugs to allow someone to kill themselves without mistakes being made under the laws enacted.

LVE is where a Doctor administers the fatal dose under the laws enacted.

By me saying ‘there are no guarantees what humans do will ever be perfect’ I am stating a fact of life. This has nothing to do with a utopian society. You have used this as an attempt to make up for a stupid remark. It didn’t work.

Of course, we need laws. What is your point?

This is nearly incomprehensible. “…but laws which inconveniently may involve the death of someone.” We are talking of voluntary euthanasia with strict guidelines that have shown to work well in other countries.

Firming up the definitions of what? Explain that and explain what you consider the firming up should consist of.

“Value life, Atheist Foundation of Australia” is a nonsensical comment. People should have the choice to decide if their life has value. It is not your call and not the AFA’s.

Your comment about devaluing life is in poor taste and opposite the truth. It is those who are opposed to LVE that don’t value the autonomy of life of others.

I hope I have helped you.

David

AFA Inc.,

So when you use that organisational title, that's not an appeal to authority ? Okay, 'David' it is. But 'David says that ..... ' doesn't have quite the same authoritative ring, does it :)

Thanks for the piddly insults, by the way: 'Stupid': yes, occasionally. What doesn't kill you will make you stronger, they say.

My point about the 92 % of Egyptian Muslims who agree with stoning women for adultery is that one can cite statistics till the cows come home, but they are not necessarily persuasive. Ask people in the street if they would like free electricity.

I suggest that you try to get to the nub of the argument instead, take note of what people may be trying to say and respond accordingly.

My point is that these terms need to be very strictly defined. I'm not a lawyer but I imagine that a competent one could find all manner of complications which could arise in trying to distinguish suicide from 'assisted suicide' from murder.

Of course, there would be legitimate cases, let's say, of suicide, even with another person present, for example, but how can a doctor or coroner or police officer be sure that a crime has not been committed ? The presence of another person can complicate a legal situation, I'm sure you would agree.

Yes, I can understand your (and Hazza's) stipulations about 'controlled' or 'assisted' 'suicide'. I am grateful that these have been clarified.

So I expect that from now on, in debates about euthanasia, we will never hear about senility, Alzheimer's, etc., unless the person involved has signed statements of volition and a strict protocol is in place.

So more slippery slopes leading into the Solent Green mincing machines ?

And I'm still baffled what on earth euthanasia has to do with atheism.

That should keep you going, David :)

Joe

Loudmouth "And I'm still baffled what on earth euthanasia has to do with atheism."

It is very well known that it is predominantly the religious element in our society who lead the push to keep euthanasia banned. Therefore, it follows that many atheists would be proponents of legal euthanasia wouldn't it?
Not ALL religious people want euthanasia to remain illegal, and not ALL atheists want it legal of course.

That's why we need a vote on the subject. Would you agree with a democratic vote on the subject?

At the end of the day, what business is it of anyone else how and when someone wants to end their life, with or without chosen helpers?
If you don't want to have euthanasia as an option, should you need it, then by all means live your life to the bitter end no matter what the consequences.
But don't take that CHOICE away from others.

Pain and discomfort that is not alleviated by modern drugs does not discriminate between religious and non-religious people.

All the palliative care in the world will not help some dying people.
Not all of us want to preserve life at all costs, and not all of us want to offer the pain up to a God.

It seems to me that all these people talking about euthanasia are missing the point of the legislative question, which is about the right of Territorians to govern themselves.

If legislation on euthanasia is controlled at a state level, rather than federally, then the NT (and the ACT and Norfolk Island) are being severely disenfranchised if the same legislative area is controlled for them at a federal level rather than by local government.

We in the ACT already get significantly less federal Senate representation per capita than the states; over-riding local governments attempts to legislate on matters normally considered in the purview of the states makes the situation even more severe.

Loudmouth,

Are you saying I should not give an opinion? Pell does, the Pope does, Jensen does, Gillard does and they don’t represent their own members. Largely, I represent Atheists and AFA members on this topic.

Stoning women is wrong in any country. Its support base is prejudice. Prejudice is not the reason people are demanding LVE. This has happened because 80% of people are driven by a sense of empathy, justice and compassion. Your free electricity statistic is irrelevant.

Systems of legal voluntary euthanasia are carefully crafted to cover all contingencies. That is why they work so well without problems. This has all been done before. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

There are safeguards in place to allow the coroner to act efficaciously and correctly. Have you read about them?

People with “senility, Alzheimer's, etc” are automatically excluded from LVE and physician assisted suicide. Please do some reading and stop wasting my time on basics.

Still on about the slippery-slope and now with Soylent Green scenarios. That is paranoid nonsense.

“And I'm still baffled what on earth euthanasia has to do with atheism.”

Atheists are annoyed at religion being the main stumbling block to the introduction of a system of legal voluntary euthanasia. Please do some reading on the topic. It would be stranger if the AFA wasn’t involved.

Sorry, Joe, there wasn’t much in that to keep me going. All you are doing is making evidentially unsupported statements. Nothing could ever be resolved if we all did that.

I know everyone has her/his own ideas about everything in existence, but sometimes, when the matter is serious; it pays to do some study on it. Please humour me and do this small favour. You could start by doing a Google on SAVES. Thanks.

David

Somehow a community which is totally callous in the murder of the unborn tries to pretend that they are all about compassion when it comes to receive an inheritance. I realise that this is not the case for the majority but certainly will be for a number as discovered by those working at the coal face in Holland.

Have a read from those dealing with the issue

http://www.hospicepatients.org/euth-experts-speak.html

David I have been following the comments regarding VE,and definately agree with yourself on all of the comments you have made.
If a person wishes to enter a hospice at the end of their life when there is no chance of survival then they must go for it, but that is not what I want for my ending, I prefer a peaceful ending where I decide when I have had enough of pain and loss of dignity through my instructions beforehand, do these people want when they have had a massive stroke to be fed thru a tube in the stomach and with a large bag between their legs to collect all of their body wastes, this could go on for a very long time, let alone the paralysis,loss of speech and loss of mental capacity that a stroke also incurs, they also must remember they will be pulling another feeding tube out of their nose owing to aggravation in a semi unconscious state, this will eventually lead to their starvation, pneumonia and final death, when through VE this could have been a very peaceful ending much earlier. I say once again if that is what you want then I am very happy for you to go down this path and I most certainly hope that you enjoy it at your end of life, surely any one in their right mind whould not want this,(an actual relative of mine this week, luckily through the family they have requested that all life saving procedures be stopped by the medical staff, there is no hope of recovery] so VE should have been the order of the day much earlier, most religious people and others want me to suffer thei way, please let me die the way I want to die.
Ojnab

David,

"Are you saying I should not give an opinion? Pell does, the Pope does, Jensen does, Gillard does and they don’t represent their own members. Largely, I represent Atheists and AFA members on this topic."

No.

Suze,

"Loudmouth "And I'm still baffled what on earth euthanasia has to do with atheism."

"It is very well known that it is predominantly the religious element in our society who lead the push to keep euthanasia banned.
"Therefore, it follows that many atheists would be proponents of legal euthanasia wouldn't it?
"Not ALL religious people want euthanasia to remain illegal, and not ALL atheists want it legal of course."

........

Mmmmmm, nope, still baffled. But I enjoyed your last statement: spot-on, thanks.

You write about Choice, with which I have not the slightest qualm: of course, people should be able to choose. But move a little beyond that: many people may not 'choose'; in a non-perfect world, others may wish it on them: murder does happen occasionally in this wicked world. How does a coronial system tell the difference ?

How does one commit suicide in such a way that nobody else can be implicated, or incorrectly blamed ? If another person is present, even a loved one, how does one, if you like, keep them out of it ? Certainly, a note would be handy.

As for 'assisted suicide', presumably by doctors, provided there were strict protocols in place that would satisfy a coroner (in her/his role of guardian of last resort), evidence of informed consent would still have to be present.

Well, that should rule out Alzheimer's patients, I guess. So no, David, no Solent Green :)

Joe

Ojnab,

Most people agree with you about being forced to suffer at the end of life. It is a bit sad that the opposition to LVE try to simplify MDEL’s (medical decision at the end of life) down to the slippery slope imagined danger.

Decisions at the end of life by oneself, family and Doctors cover a whole range of various situations. It falls on these people the duty to carry out requests for no resuscitation, removing of feed tubes, turning of respirators and overdosing with pain drugs knowing death will occur.

It is the statistics on the non voluntary euthanasia deaths that religions play around with to make a case against legal voluntary euthanasia. It really is outrageous that people who promote themselves as the highest form of morality lie about such things. As one can notice on these forums such distortion by the clergy may be accepted without critical examination by some of the adherents and others.

Religious politicians are particularly susceptible.

Those fortunate enough to know a Doctor who will consider a request for illegal VE is another case in point. The rich and famous may have that luxury but it does not necessarily carry over to everyone.

Ojnab, you are correct. A small percentage of us will be confronted by horrors we never dreamed of at our time of death. We are all in the same lottery. In my opinion, it is beyond foolhardy to be now opposing a system shown to be safe in other countries that any of us could benefit from at that time.

But no, right now, the last and the most important decision of our life is not one we can make legally.

David

From the link given by runner above,

<Carlos Gomez, MD, Ph.D., wrote in his book, Regulating Death - Euthanasia and the case of the Netherlands, the following:

p. 138: "...I remain unconvinced that under current regulations the practice [of euthanasia] is not abused. those in the United States who point to the Netherlands as a public policy model for assistance with suicide have not, I would suggest, looked carefully enough. If the Netherlands - with its generous social services and universal health coverage - has problems controlling euthansasia, it takes little effort to imagine what would happen in the United States, with a medical system groaning under the strain of too many demands on too few resources.">

Australia ihas lost any tradition it may once have had of respecting and valuing the old as legitimate, contributing and worthwhile members of society. Just to take a few examples:

- the aged care system remains broken and there is no political will to build anew, which is necessary;

- government is already proposing that the elderly pay for their own aged care and by reverse mortgages where necessary (amazing how banks realised in advance that reverse mortgages could become 'popular'). This 'user pays' is in fact tax double-dipping by government;

- there is substantial, active discrimination against older people, who may only be middle aged. For decades they have been government's whipping boys for blow-outs in the budget. There is ageism in employment, particularly in federal and state public services where older people, predominately men, have borne the brunt of restructuring and affirmative action policies through losing their jobs. Although skilled and desperate for work to support their families and to prepare for retirement, such displaced 'old' people remain on the unemployment queue much longer than other job seekers and long enough for some skills to become dated; and

- the aged lack choice in their care options and government has demonstrated it prefers to side-step direct consultation with seniors, choosing to negotiate with a plethora of vested interests claiming to represent them instead.
cont.,

contd.,

There is no debate that seniors might eventually become victims of economic rationalism, it is already happening and government is more than keen to try to absolve itself of its responsibility for the well-being and care of the aged. Much of the user pays that has been implemented in recent decades has impacted severely on seniors, especially self-funded retirees, many of whom were forced into retirement through untimely redundancy.

The author wrote "Unfortunately governments must make decisions about allocating finite resources; that’s the nature of a modern economy."

Governments have always done that, but what about an open review of the present priorities of government to set priorities for expenditure first? Should someone else's war be supported by grubby tricks to lever the independent old out of their homes, or to provide maternity leave benefits and child care for the employed middle class?

Here is the conclusion from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops from a paper by Mr. Doerflinger and Dr. Gomez. http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlpdoe.shtml

Note- Catholic conference of Bishops

Note – Dr Gomez has combined his ideological position with that of the pro-life (Misnomer) advocate, Mr Doerflinger at a Catholic conference quoting Pope John Paul II.

No bias in that lot.

And not one fact supporting their position except what they consider is best for their ideological position. The patient’s wishes do not count. This is nothing but religious/medical tyranny.

David

“In logic and in practice, two very different paths lie before the medical profession and our society: What Pope John Paul II has called the "false mercy" of assisted suicide and euthanasia, and the "the way of love and true mercy" that dedicates us to compassionate care (The Gospel of Life, No. 66-67). It is literally a choice between death and life.

Mr. Doerflinger is Associate Director for Policy Development, Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Dr. Gomez is Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Virginia Health System and Medical Director of its Palliative Care Program.”

David,

Gomez' position is just one, clouded as it may be by religious dogma.

Yours is another.

Mine is another, for what it's worth.

Gomez raises misgivings. I raise misgivings. Gomez has written a paper with a bishop, and therefore is a puppet of the Pope. Therefore I am guilty by association of being a puppet of the Pope.

With respect, I think your argument tends to beg the question, i.e. assume what it needs to demonstrate.

Can we stay away from the 'guilt by association' ploy and attend to the issues ?

My concern is simply 'how do you distinguish suicide and voluntary death, from potentially murder ?' I don't have any quarrel at all with 'choice', so can we put that one in its box, as it were ?

Joe

Because some see euthanasia as an economic solution, while providing death with 'dignity' for those who are (allegedly) costly overheads for government and since the frail old seem to be their main targets, it would be reasonable for government to directly involve seniors in the debate.

Without writing a book to provide reasons, it is far cheaper to aim at maintaining the health and wellbeing older people. Essential to this is continuing their independence in their homes and allowing choice of services to suit their needs.

While the focus is on the possible cost of the elderly to government, which has probably been over-estimated anyway, I would venture that their costs to government will be nothing compared with the health burden resulting from the sedentary lifestyles and 'take away' diets of later generations.

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,
Well I am not a Catholic and I am not opposed to euthanasia per se. You haven't dispelled any of my points though.

Cornflower,

You are swaying off the topic of a system of Legal Voluntary Euthanasia into peripheral areas the AFA does not have a mandate on. I am also very busy and need to get on with other matters. The information about LVE is out there for people to do their own search.

David

Loudmouth,

You must read about intended laws and you will find answers to your questions. You are not a child. Do your own research.

Summing up, depending on the intended legislation, a number of doctors and psychiatrists look at the request, which has to be a persistent request from a person over a certain age, and who must fit the criteria, must be deemed mentally capable of such a decision and not suffering from chronic depression. All parties sign the appropriate paper work.

I’ll leave you people to it.

David

Loudmouth <"My concern is simply 'how do you distinguish suicide and voluntary death, from potentially murder ?' "

I thought we were discussing euthanasia, not suicide?
I believe it will ONLY be qualified Doctors who would carry out the wishes of patients who request voluntary euthanasia when the time comes.
So I don't really understand your question Loudmouth.
Are you suggesting we should be wary of Doctors murdering people?

I know it has happened in the past of course, but with euthanasia legislation I would imagine there would be other Doctors who would have to oversee all potential euthanasia cases as well.

So no, I really can't see murder as a problem if all the legal and medical safeguards are in place.

Sorry, Suze, but I have heard and read of so many people saying that they should have the choice of going when they want to when the topic of euthanasia is raised, and I have assumed that they also include the taking of their own lives when and in what circumstances they choose in that definition. So I have lumped such suicide (which is fine with me) in with a commonly-held notion of 'euthanasia'.

On the other hand, occasionally the discussion [not necessarily this one] slides towards 'helping' people die with 'dignity' [cf. Cornflower's perfectly reasonable objections] and even sort of left-handed references to Alzheimer's. So forgive me if it appears as if the scope of 'euthanasia' sometimes seems very broad, and not confined to doctor-supervised and/or -assisted voluntary suicide.

If the definition of euthanasia is confined to (a) suicide and (b) voluntary (attested in some way) dying under the supervision of doctors, then, subject to all the preliminaries of counselling, age, state of health, terminality, unbearable pain, exhaustion of palliative care, etc., I would not necessarily oppose it.

Joe

Yes, I see where you are coming from Loudmouth.
With Alzheimer disease, I would say that many people would also want to include the possibility of dying with this horrible disease as a top of the list reason for legalising euthanasia...I know I would.

If we all had a medical directive stating what we would and wouldn't accept as an end of life situation, long before we are diagnosed with any of these diseases/disorders, then I have no doubt Alzheimer disease (only one of a list of Dementia conditions) would be among them.
Slowly losing your mind, and then all your bodily functions over a period of maybe 10 years is truly awful.

Imagine not being able to say if you had pain? Elderly people with Alzheimer disease/dementia can still suffer from arthritis and all the other painful disorders that can affect the elderly.

As a nurse, myself and my colleagues often discuss the subject of Euthanasia of course, mainly because we get asked (begged) on almost a daily basis to supply the means to do it.

We think that if euthanasia became legal, the conditions we would definitely have on our own personal euthanasia list would include Motor neurone disease, Huntingtons Disease, severe strokes, Asbestosis, Mesothelioma, Dementia, and any cancer that causes pain not relieved by modern medications.

Atheist Foundation of Australia, "You are swaying off the topic of a system of Legal Voluntary Euthanasia into peripheral areas the AFA does not have a mandate on."

Whoops, forgot that your 'mandate' only extends to picking fights with Christians.

Cornflower,

“Whoops, forgot that your 'mandate' only extends to picking fights with Christians.”

Funny how some people get everything so wrong. The AFA is opposed to religious stupidity, which of course includes some parts of the stupidity by Christianity. If religious people, including Christians follow the stupid parts of their ‘faith’, no one really cares, especially the AFA. We figure they have enough to contend with without us adding to their burden.

David