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.