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.