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)