A good article on coerced euthanasia - but I thought it was meant to be about voluntary euthanasia. I agree that coerced euthanasia is a BAD THING, as I'm sure everybody else does. I'm still in favour of voluntary euthanasia, because I do not consider the mere possibility of such abuses occurring sufficient grounds to toss the baby out with the bathwater and oppose voluntary euthanasia out of hand.

Elder abuse is a significant concern and those who rail against deserve support and praise.

It is possible to address Elder Abuse with the same tools to prevent coersed euthanasia.

A. Proper advocacy for the elderly, including guardianship by tribunal(possibly resulting in guardianship provided by the Office of Public Guardian), power of attorney, etc.

B. A policy for euthanasia only for (i) hospital patients (ii) with terminal desease, as determined by at least 3 doctors not working together, who are (iii) in the terminal stages of that disease, and who (iv) are not palliated by optimal palliative care, as determined by a medical tribunal that garners submission from at relast 2 of the 3 doctors defining terminal disease.

This advocates a "nanny" system, but that is the only way to deal with the elderly and potential widespread & varied abuse.

How dare anyone tell me that I can't end my life if I have a terminal disease and of sound mind determined by independent and qualified practitioners. That is NOT elderly abuse.

When a younger person despairs and contemplates taking their own life, we do not hand them the means to do so. We try to give them hope and show them reasons to live. We should do the same for all, regardless of age. Euthanasia takes advantage of the elderly and fails to accord them basic respect. We must give all people reasons to live rather than reasons to die. To do otherwise is an abuse of human dignity.

Thank-you for your article, Paul!

I definitely think Paul Russell shouldn't receive any assistance to end his own life, no matter how badly he wants to go. Let him suffer.

For normal people though, I think it ought to be their own choice.

The risk of abuse cuts both ways.

I had recent experience of this, as we had the palliative care of my mother-in-law who had advanced dementia and breast cancer. We cared for her at home for the last six months of her life until she died a few months ago.

The last couple of months were absolutely dreadful for her, her life was a pain, an indignity and a burden, she longed to be quit of it, and she repeatedly told us so. She was on oxygen, and required full-time assistance for everything, which her husband, daughter and sister provided. As her condition worsened, they really had to attend on her every move. At first they could take her to the toilet but at the end, when moving was too difficult, they toileted her on a potty in the lounge room. You can imagine the distress this caused to a dignified old lady. She used to say “I’ll be glad when this is all over”, and “call the doctor and put me down”.

But of course the doctor couldn’t put her down – it’s against the law.

It would have been easy to say “If you wand to end it all, just drink all this and swallow all these”, because she was prescribed morphine which we were administering, plus all the drugs under the sun. But who wants to be in that position? And why should we be?

On the other hand if we had hospitalized her, there was no way they could provide the care we would, and they would probably have killed her by neglect which would have been more distressing. (And her aged husband would have set up camp in her room, would have neglected himself, and it would have been worse for the whole family – 140 km round trip to the hospital each day.)

(cont.)

So here she was in dreadful distress, her possibility of any kind of enjoyable or even non-painful life absolutely finished, utterly demented, knowing it, and nothing to live for. If you had a sheep or a dog in that condition you’d be prosecuted for cruelty. But here the law-makers, without knowing her circumstances, had decided that *she herself* was unable to make the decision to end her misery.

It was also abusive for her daughter. The main burden fell on her to make every call as to medication, toileting, and moving her. At the end, everything done to the old lady was distressing to her. Yet my wife couldn’t just see her mother die of neglect, so she had to feed her, and water her, and toilet her, and decide everything and do it for her, and this was became increasingly painful and distressing to the old lady. So imagine the mental distress to my wife when at the end her mother said “I want to see a policeman to make sure you’re doing the right thing by me!”

So it makes me angry when I see the puffed-up know-it-alls of the government, paid for with money taken from the deceased, presuming to know better than everyone else, starting from the presumption that everyone’s relations are abusive, and never questioning for an instant that their own blundering arrogant central planning might be the cause of worse abuse.

Murder is against the law and there is no question that that is as it should be. But to ban *voluntary* euthanasia, when you do not and cannot know the circumstances of what you are talking about, is I think more abusive and culpable than the original problems you are trying to solve by interfering.

*Euthanasia takes advantage of the elderly and fails to accord them basic respect.*

Gawd Mischka, so then sticking me into a home one day, watching
and waiting until I gasp my last breathe, against my will, is
showing me basic respect?

Palliative care is big business for the Catholic Church. It would
be in their financial interest to fight against euthanasia all the
way. Do they have some association with the organisation
campaigning against euthanasia? Is the author perchance a Catholic?

The main argument against voluntary euthanasia seems to be describing situations whereby euthanasia is performed involuntarily, so is thus not an argument against voluntary euthanasia.

By all means employ any number of bureaucratic, medical, psychological hurdles to overcome to allow one to receive voluntary euthanasia. This would result in many being rejected, but then surely the ones who are approved by the government, 12 doctors, 15 psychologists, and the queen will be the ones who deserve it the most.

Lets start there and see how it goes.

Firstly, Yabby, please don't put words into my mouth. I said nothing about sticking someone in a home, etc.. Secondly, if you had read what I said without jumping to conclusions, you would see that I'm advocating a positive approach to elderly care instead of a negative one. Good palliative care should be the priority. What sort of answer is euthanasia to the problem of suffering?! We should try to alleviate suffering, not end life. Euthanasia is a cowardly and lazy way of dealing with the problem of inadequate palliative care.

You should also note that the Catholic Church does not oppose pain relief which has the side effect of ending the patient's life. If someone is in severe pain that can only be alleviated by a dose of morphine so high that there is a risk that the patient will die, the doctor can in good conscience administer that dose in consultation with the patient and their family. That's not euthanasia, that's just realistic palliative care. Your suggestion that the Catholic Church opposes euthanasia for financial gain is insulting. Protecting life is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church and it would be paradoxical for it to do otherwise.

There is nothing respectful about promoting the option to die while ignoring the option to live. Even when in pain (and I say this as someone with a chronic disease), there is so much to live for, and I object to the idea that we should reject life simply because of suffering. Life is full of suffering, but death is not the answer to it.

My mother in the last two years of her life suffered acute dementia and wanted to be "be put down" as she described it. There was no quality of life for her and she lived in misery until they eventually pulled all her feeding tubes and she took two weeks to die, sedated of course, of starvation in hospital. As a family decision we gave her brain to research for Alzheimers in the hope that new developments might be found to cure this terrible complaint. The religious and devout should think on these stories where palliative care is not always the answer.

The reason this is dismissed as an argument against voluntary euthanasia is because appropriate legislation would include enough checks and hurdles to ensure it couldn't happen.

If it were truly an issue, the author would provide examples of its incidence in those jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal.

And perhaps some of you should have a little more regard for old fools like me who have read the Remmelink Report and are aware of how even in the Netherlands with the best safeguards people have been "put down" without their permission.

I personally do not want doctors or my family to have the option of "helping" me end my life, because I don't know what I'll say when under the influence of various pain killers. Perhaps I'll beg them to kill me. I don't rightly know. But I do know that when in my 'right mind' I don't want to end my life prematurely, no matter how bad the pain and suffering is, and while you might think that's stupid, that's my right and it should be my choice. It is not respectful of you to think that you know better, or to push the euthanasia option when you should be encouraging me to cling onto life to the very last.

However awful the end may be, I don't want to lose one second of life, because that last second could be the touch of a loved one's hand or seeing my baby niece's heart-melting smile. That's what life is about and you should have a little more respect for that.

Montgomery,

Nobody is proposing that you shouldn't have the right not to choose euthanasia. After all, we are discussing voluntary euthanasia and not compulsory euthanasia. But it cuts both ways - if other people do wish to choose euthanasia, that should be their right and their choice. It is not respectful to think that you know better, or to deny people the option of euthanasia.

*I said nothing about sticking someone in a home, etc.*

No Mishka, for its easy to pontificate on about how palliative
care should be etc. All very noble. Meantime let those of us who
choose to, make our own evaluation about what really happens and
what the choices are.

Let those like Montgomery make living wills about their views,
and make their intentions and choices clear.

But it is insulting to the rest of us and hardly respectful
to want to force your philosophies and choices on us.

The Catholic Church can believe whatever they will, but they have
no right to enforce their dogma either. They should stick to
preaching to the flock.

I happen to think that my philosophies are far more evolved then
theirs. To me life and death and quite natural processes in the
cycle of life. Some people just can't get their mind about accepting
death, some of us can. Some of us don't want to spend years suffering, it should be our choice.

Respect is about having a regard for others and their choices, its not about forcing
your opinion down their throats legally.

Cling to your last breathe if you will, suffer if you choose to,
but don't try to force me to do the same, if I choose not to.
What you are showing is absolutaly no respect for my wishes.

Every one has choices and so they should , some people make bad choices and suffer the consequences.
What does the Eskimo do , how is the UBD concluded ? Apparently when the elderly can't render animal hide by chewing because their teeth are worn away below their gums .The only downside is waiting deserted on the trail for the Grisly to come . Frankly I'm glad I'm not an Eskimo Dr Nitschke's method is much more user friendly using Botox the same product Vet's use to put your pets down , very humane almost instant the best way to go, sure beats the Grisly who might just eat your feet and save the rest for breakfast.
Sure there has to be check's and balances but the noise created by religious Zealots should not apply to me none of their beliefs are applicable to me . I shouldn't have to import Botox myself illegally from 3rd world Countries ,that's ridicules.
A MRI of my Brain shows 13 stroke's have occurred over a period of time so you can easily imagine my quality of life .

The Acolyte Rizla, please re-read my first paragraph. I don't trust any euthanasia legislation to safeguard against involuntary euthanasia. This article highlights the 'slippery slope': http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2011/11/euthanasia-in-europe-sliding-down.html

Yabby, anyone can commit suicide if they want, but euthanasia by definition requires someone else to either do or abet the killing. That not only raises the risk of someone else making the decision for you, as even those who are pro-euthanasia have admitted in the Netherlands, but also creates a moral issue with regard to the role of the doctor (who is supposed to preserve life not take it). Furthermore, the focus on euthanasia distracts from the more pressing issue of palliative care.

I think Montgomery has raised a good point about the possible state of mind of the proposed euthanasia patient. Euthanasia legislation by its very nature assumes that pain and suffering is justification for killing, while he has indicated it's something that could affect his judgement. He shouldn't have to make a living will to indicate he wants to live. Life should be the default, not death.

At the end of the day, euthanasia isn't about suicide, it's about getting someone else to kill you. It places your death on someone else's conscience, and it allows you to end your life prematurely. It's not about accepting death, as you put it, because if you really accepted death you would accept it when it comes and not try to hasten its arrival. Euthanasia is not about accepting death, it's about rejecting life. It is cowardly because it demonstrates a fear of living out one's fate, and it is lazy because it transfers responsibility for one's death to someone else.

Euthanasia is pretty easily organize, just admit your oldie to a Queensland hospital, they'll fix them.

My 98 year old mother was still living a semi independent life in her self contained granny flat, beside my home. Sure we provided her meals, & did the cleaning, & we had in home care helping with showering 3 times a week, but she was independent otherwise, doing her own thing, & in contact with her unfortunately diminishing circle of friends.

When she suffered a bleeding ulcer she was admitted to the nearest large hospital. The doctors were excellent. In a couple of days she was sitting up, all bright eyed & bushy tailed, demanding a mirror, & cosmetics. Old ladies must have their lipstick on when in public, don't you know.

I wanted to take her home on Friday, but the physiotherapist's said no. She was not yes strong enough to get out of bed unaided, & required another day or two.

Unfortunately the weekend staff did not bother to find out that she was bed bound. They forgot to feed or water her throughout Saturday. At 11 am Sunday her table was out of her reach, with Saturday, lunch & dinner, Sunday breakfast, 4 packs of the specially thickened water they had prescribed, & a cup of cold tea all there.

She was shriveled like a prune, & incoherent. You probably heard my explosion, it was not quiet.

She never walked again, & spent 2 unhappy bed bound months in a very good nursing home before she went.

She wanted to come home, but I was not enough to handle her. I needed a lot of help to get her into, & out of a car for an outing.

So if you want to get rid of your oldie, try the Queensland health service. Success is almost assured.

Monty 3 nov.

None of that applies to me , why do you insist my philosophy must conform to yours?

Dear Montgomery

Just ensure if voluntary euthanasia ever becomes reality - and so it should for those who are terminally ill with unmanageable pain and stress - that your family and carers know you are not VOLUNTEERING.

Problem solved!

As for others - let them make up their own minds. As a society we treat our end of life people far less kindly than animals. There are laws against cruelty to animals. So far there does not seem to be the same outrage when it takes a terminally ill person weeks, months to die even if that person is suffering poorly controlled pain, total incapacity and begs to be 'put down' and of course isn't.

For the next 'anti' poster who claims this should never be the case and good palliative care is the answer .... yada yada .. All I can say is: Good palliative care is hard to find. Unless you or your loved one has access to a dedicated palliative care unit, your chances of recieving the standard of care required to alleviate most of the suffering is Buckleys. Better pray to die with your boots on ...

Elder abuse is a reality and a scourge but I'm failing to see any real connection with 'voluntary euthanasia'. Any legislation would exclude 'coercion by another' and 'depression resulting from abuse' as a basis. If a 'carer' under such circumstances, wanted the victim to 'suicide' then wouldn't it be easier to stand over them and force them to take an overdose? Plus I'm sure there are a number of undetected murders each year which were deemed accidental death or suicide.

Regards protecting the elderly from abuse - there are far far better strategies than opposing assisted voluntary euthanasia. If the author is serious about Elder Abuse he may wish to suggest more realistic approaches for reducing it.

abortion started out all about the poor 15 year old girl who was raped and should not have to bear another person's child. Then it became about the woman's right to kill the baby because it lives in her body. Now we have about 100,000 per year mostly for convenience and some close to birth. Can you trust the social engineers who now argue that Euthanasia is about relief of pain! Why are many suspicious.

*He shouldn't have to make a living will to indicate he wants to live. Life should be the default, not death.*

In that case I should have the right to make a living will now,
that when the time comes, I want the choice to decide about when
to end my life, not anyone else.

Injecting myself, would hopefully still be possible, if I was in
the physical state to do so. All I would need is the drugs. Blowing
ones brains out, swallowing some box poison (1080) are all rather
messy and painfull.

*It is cowardly because it demonstrates a fear of living out one's fate*

Cowardly? More like perfectly sensible and logical. IMHO the old
Catholic notion that "suffering is noble" is a heap of cobblers.

Who decided this fate that one should suffer for years? Lead your
life as you please, but please show some respect for others who
have different opinions to what I think are your wierd philosophies.

I have argued for years in favor of VOLUNTARY euthanasia. I still do.
It's a personal choice, and one I am comfortable with.
The arguments against it as presented in this article and in some of the comments do not sway me, although I can respect them all bar one: the epithet coward when applied to anyone who in their right mind chooses to go.
Consider for a moment taking that big step into the final unknown, and to then call anyone willing to make that call coward? I don't think so. On the contrary, it is a very brave act, and worthy of respect.
But that too is a personal call, as is my opinion that the true coward is the person who abdicates personal responsibility and lets 'god' do it.
To add a bit of fuel to the debate, I don't think voluntary euthanasia should be limited to those with terminal illnesses. Rather I think the option should be made available to anyone who for whatever reason wants to go.
Again a personal view, but if I choose to walk through that door, who is anyone to tell me that I may not?

This is a very difficult issue.

The science and technology of medicine are transforming
the treatment of the ill and injured, and millions of
people owe their health and lives to the dramatic medical
innovations of the past few decades.

Some of the new technologies, however, are creating new
problems even as they solve old ones. In particular, the
new technologies have given doctors and patients a range
of difficult life-or-death choices that they did not have
even a few years ago.

Terminally-ill patients can now be kept alive through
artificial respiration, intravenous feeding, electronic
heart stimulation, mechanical organ substitutes, or even
transplants of body parts from other people or animals.

Consequently, medical dilemmas frequently become moral
and legal ones as well.

Today patients can be hooked up for days, months, or years
to machines that sustain their lives, and this step may be
taken even if they are in constant pain or even if they are
permanently comatose.

Thus, technologies that were intended to save people from
unnecessary death may actually have the efect of depriving
them of a dignified death.

If someone is in a vegetative state, has lost all of their
functional and mental independence why would anyone pursue
a vigorous therapy that would benefit no one except their
own satisfaction in twarting death, regardless of the
consequences? Why not allow that person to die in peace
and dignity?

They already can, Lexi. No one's trying to make people stay alive longer than they want. You can have a 'Do Not Resuscitate' order if you are very old or terminally ill. A life support machine can be turned off. And, as I said before, extreme pain can be relieved even when it means death is a likely side-effect. All these things are already options. There is no need to legalise euthanasia. We should perhaps call it assisted suicide more often, because that decribes it better.

Paul Russell raises an excellent issue. I was not aware that elder abuse was such a serious problem.

But it is not a reason to ban voluntary euthenasia.

Peter Hume,

Your story should be mandatory reading for anyone opposed to voluntary euthenasia.

"Voluntary" is defined. For example http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voluntary

Legislation must pass 2 houses of Parliament in most cases, usually via Parliamentary Committees along the way.

Lots of people get to have a say.

I say let's draft laws that enable voluntary euthanasia.

The "protection from abuse" angle raised here should be built into the mechanism that enables the voluntary election to be made.

I respect the author's right to have a position contrary to mine but that shouldn't mean absolute veto on drafting a law to enable truly voluntary election to commit suicide.

If the ONLY evidence-supported argument the author can muster against legal, regulated, monitored euthanasia for those who want it is that an old woman was murdered, then further comment would appear to be superfluous.

We euthanasia for a lot more young people than we do for old ones.

Simple- legalize euthanasia, but on condition that
-it may only be practiced by a certified practitioner with a specific license to conduct euthanasia.
-The patient is either terminally ill, or disabled with low prospects of immediate recovery
-that practitioner is called in, interviews the patient to clarify intent to die (or is provided legally-acceptable evidence that the person would have wanted to die), explains the procedure, sets up the euthanasia device, asks for permission again before turning it on.

That would bypass the "evil relatives making grandpa die a few weeks sooner to get his inheritance" scenario;

Of course, as the author represents a dubious organization that stands for nothing but "ban euthanasia", I don't think that's the solution they wanted to hear.

Paul Russell

Note; The Aborigine did not have the danger you highlight.

It can be easily eliminated when all people’s tenures cease at death.

In fact 'The Will' is an absurd instrument which pretends that man has powers after death.

Think that its absurdity made and makes monarchies ereditary.

Funny that the other day such ritual was confirmed at the
meeting of the British Commonwealt in Perth, the present Queen of England accepting a new rule about the sex of the one succeding to Her Throne.

Posted by Mishka Gora, Thursday, 3 November 2011 9:20:04 AM

That's fine Mishka but you might change your mind when you get to my level of unviability , I did the no intervention thing but my Daughter kicked up such a fuss and got so upset the Dr and I relented .
3 yrs on she is still mothering me , thats 3 yrs of her life so far that can't be recovered and I get to take 25 medications per day that make me feel just rotten , I am eternally convinced that I would be a very happy cadaver .

Seems like another version of the "think of the children" argument but in this case those who have trustworthy family and a desire to end life with dignity cannot do so because of the minority of vulnerable people.
Sure lets protect vulnerable elderly from criminal family...but lets also not use coercion and the force of Law to remove entirely one's right to control ones *own* destiny.
Tyrants, even petty ones always use charity or virtue to justify their violence onto others. As with prohibition, where the costs and damage far outweighs the "benefits" of restricting other's behaviour, banning healthy but doomed folk from making their own exit plan is inhumane. Laws will never obtain social perfection...Deliberate inhumanity trumps the occasional criminal act in my book.
These is only so much the Law can and should do for society. Trying to protect folks from themselves is not only pointless and immoral, it also is harmful in the "moral hazard" sense. It certainly doesn't help if folks who cannot keep out of other's business are empowered...they just don't know when to stop!

hear hear Ozandy............very nicely explained.....thank you.

Another paid official of the Catholic Church trying to force religious dogma on the rest of us.
" Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly". -- Isaac Asimov