Once again euthanasia is being confused with assisted suicide.

None of us have the choice to live forever but we CAN choose the time and manner of our death (if we are lucky).

The ability to choose to die is one of the things that defines us as human. No other animal can do it. To deny us this choice is, in my opinion, a crime against our humanity.

I guess as a director of an organisation fighting voluntary
euthanasia etc, the author has to try and think of some credible
arguments to make his case, that would be what he would be paid
to do, I would think.

A far more enlightened argument, a far more humane philosophy,
is explained here by a doctor involved with Exit in Switzerland,
where assisted suicide works extremely well.

http://www.exit-geneve.ch/Exempleoas.pdf

But then our thinking in Australia is years behind. Eventually even
we will have to concede that torturing old people in the name of
religious dogma, often against their will, is hardly the humane
option. Buying a used car has little to do with it.

>>But what if you never wanted to buy a car in the first place?<<

Then you wouldn't buy a used car.

No salesman can sell you a used car if you don't want to buy it. In exactly the same way that no doctor will be allowed to kill their patient without that patient's consent. If they were to do that, it wouldn't be euthanasia: it would be murder. Paul, we already know that murder is wrong - you're just preaching to the choir. Maybe you should write an article explaining why euthanasia is wrong, bearing foremost in your mind at all times the extremely important distinction between murder and euthanasia.

michael_in_adelaide: Once again euthanasia is being confused with assisted suicide.

I agree with Michael. Voluntry assisted suicide is a CHOICE made by the person who wants to end the pain & suffering. Euthanasia is being "put down" as in, "There is no choice by the person." However, turning of the life support is not Euthanasia as the person is already dead & the electrics in the body keep parts of the body functioning.

I have watched a number of people die when the attendant swiched off the machines. These people were already dead & the machines kept the electrical system working & pumping air rythmicly into the lungs until the relatives have all said their goodbyes, then the attendants slowly turns the machine down until the persons responces go. Then they switch it off. It's a bit of an illusion really. But that's the reality of it.

Yabby

My objection to euthanasia uses the same reasoning as my support of abortion. Both situations involve the extrapolation of time to a person in the future. With abortion you are destroying a potential human being in the present, but with euthanasia you are authorising the killing a human being in the future. Do you think it valid for a future self to be dictated to by a past or future self not in existence, or should the decision be made by one of sound mind in the present?

The present is the present, not the future. We exist only in the present.

Fester, please take the time to read the Swiss article and then
explain what you object to, about their system. Thanks.

Yabby, sound advice. Perhaps it should also be directed at the author. His straw man argument fails to impress this reader.

David

A number of years ago I visited my aunt in the hospital. She was suffering an agonising death due to cancer. Devices attached to her body and monitored by electronic circuitry were keeping her alive. She was unable to speak but nodded her head toward the electic outlet clearly wishing that I pull the plug. Considering the consequences to myself I did not pull the plug.

Some time later I visited my mother in a nursing home. She was conscious that she was losing her grip on reality. She said, "I want to die." The staff characterised her as 'antisocial' citing the fact that she did not want to watch the soapies on TV in company with the other inmates. She had never watched them on the outside and did not want to be reduced to that. She retained her physical strength for some time, and an alert staff member stopped her as she raised a chair over her head to bring it down on another old lady. She subsequently spent seven years in bed in a vegetative state before she died.

I wish my aunt and mother could have ended it when they wanted to. I am a member of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Queensland.

Yabby

You are describing assisted suicide, which involves a person of sound mind making a decision in the present. None of my business, but why do you need an industry to assist you to do this? Having businesses which profit from people deciding to kill themselves is to open for abuse in my opinion. Some people have become quite rich from it: Not all that altruistic either, I suspect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461894

Sorry Yabby, I'll amend the question:

Do you think it valid for a present self to be dictated to by a past self or future entity not in existence, or should the decision be made by one of sound mind in the present?

Euthanasia is naturally emotive, but making bad decisions to ease suffering can open the door to unintended and unfortunate consequences.

Fester: Some people have become quite rich from it.

So what, it's a service, like any other service. It serves a purpose. If these people have traveled purposly to Switzerland with the express purpose of dieing with dignity, then "So what." They haven't been forced against their will. It's their choice & they pay the going price for the service.

The pre-requisite for the service is that the person has to be terminaly ill with no hope of recovery & in pain. As stated in the article. If the Government puts down Laws regarding the practise & it's regulated, where is the abuse?

*You are describing assisted suicide, which involves a person of sound mind making a decision in the present. None of my business, but why do you need an industry to assist you to do this?*

Fester, I remind you that the palliative care business makes serious
money out of dragging out peoples final deaths, as long as they can.
They have good reasons to oppose assisted suicide, it would cost
them big money.

It might be none of your business, but why do you want to stop me
from having a right to make a decision about my life, if I were
say paralysed completely, unable to move anything but my eyes for
instance? What if you were in the same position? As it is, I feel
empathy for the people in these circumstances, even if you are unable
to do so.

Read again the article made by the doctor from Exit and point out
to me where he is wrong. Then give me a reason why I, living in
Australia, should not have the same human rights as a Swiss
citizen, who lives in a more enlightened country it seems.

The article could have used some references to quality data to back up claims about the changes described.

There are clearly some risks where vested interests are involved be it relatives wanting an early demise or commercial operators willing to over service.

Some safeguards can be put in place but they can't cover every situation without making the process unworkable.

It's also clear that current laws leave people to suffer needlessly or find way's to end their lives that are not always successful and may do more harm or if successful leave others to deal with the aftermath. A horrific cruelty.

It's a difficult issue that's not helped by generalisations and over simplifications on either side.

I'd like to be in a position to know that if I was ever in a state where my quality of life had deteriated so much that I'd prefer it ended that there were effective means to do so that were available to me regardless of my physical capacity and which didn't leave a mess for someone else discover or clean up.

I'd be careful not to suggest that someone not hit me over the head until I got to that point.

R0bert

Thank you, Yabby, for the reference. As a long standing proponent of assisted suicide, or voluntary euthanasia, I find it encouraging to know that there are places in our world where dignity extends to dieing, including by one's own hand if and when that is desired.
Again I repeat what I have written before: In this debate, it is not those wishing to go who are attempting to tell others what they may or may not do. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this service, then don't. But don't try to justify your choice be denying to others what you don't want, but which they very well may.
This is a right whose time is not far off. And when it comes, probably it will also be seen that the choice need not be restricted to a terminal illness as attested to by X number of doctors.
It's simple, really. If someone - anyone - wants to go and is of sound mind, let them go.

halduell: It's simple, really. If someone - anyone - wants to go and is of sound mind, let them go.

You are right. There are a few people that are a few sheep short in the top paddock & it's a drain on the economy to look after these people all the time. If they want to go, they should have a way of doing it so it works first time. It wastes valuble resources to keep saving them from themselves. Resources that would be better spent on people who want to live.

Halduell,

I guess the first step would be to legalise suicide, and see what the complications might be that arise from that initiative - for example, how to differentiate between genuine suicide and manslaughter or murder, by some attestation that the person was doing this of their own free will, no coercion; whether or not a second person was involved, or present and potentially involved; and what sort of counselling (professional and secular, not religious) might be mandated to talk people through the taking of their one and only lives, before they can get the necessary prescriptions. As an atheist, I would not want to give my life away too cheaply, or on a whim: after all, there's nothing but worms afterwards. But I guess I wouldn't know about them by then.

At another level: if a second person was involved, or present, or within cooee - especially if that person was to benefit in some way from the death - then clearly there are complications before a person's death can be ruled to be from suicide.

At a 'higher' level still: if a person was so incapacitated that they could not carry out their own death in any way, then there is another range of complications, involving medical professionals and 'helpers'. Of course, the person would have to be in complete possession of their mental faculties even in this case. It's not quite so simple as you may think :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe
In Australia isn't suicide legal? Or is it merely not illegal? This is a real question, and if you know the answer, I would appreciate seeing it.
Your other points are valid and can all be dealt with by properly constructing the enabling legislation.
Nothing is ever 'so simple' until it's done. And then it's so often seen to be so simple and too easy and what was all the fuss about anyway.
OF COURSE we have to protect the vulnerable from the rapacious.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/International_year_of_chemistry/Health_&_Research/Assisted_suicide_activist_speaks_out_on_debate.html?cid=7107364

Fester, according to this article, Exit Switzerland, which only
provides services to Swiss citizens, has 70'000 members who each
pay 30$ a year. Jerome Nobel describes further as to how their
organisation works. Hardly sounds like a financial rip off to me.

He makes the clear distinction between euthanasia and assisted
suicide.

"Euthanasia is naturally emotive, but making bad decisions to ease suffering can open the door to unintended and unfortunate consequences."

That alone makes no sense, because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, and certainly not the government, has any right to dictate to me what happens to my (or anyone elses) body.

I am the one to make that choice, and nobody will ever take that away from me. They can take away my control if they can pry it from my cold dead stiff hands.

People like you are the reason why we have so many problems. This simplistic style of thinking is not going to get you anywhere, certainly not with me, or anyone who has a modicum of intellectual capacity.

You might consider yourself an intellectual, but I have different views about that. That you would have no problem with abortion, yet force someone to endure endstage cancer, speaks volumes about your level of empathy which, at least to me, appears to be close to zero.

Yabby said: "Fester, I remind you that the palliative care business makes serious
money out of dragging out peoples final deaths, as long as they can.
They have good reasons to oppose assisted suicide, it would cost
them big money."

Excuse me? What a bizarre comment, and baseless. As a doctor who was worked in palliative care, I can assure you this is not an industry that generates any money. Pall care specialists are not remotely well remunerated relative to their colleagues. This is a function of the non-procedural nature of their work and the patient-centred model of care, i.e. large amounts of time spend with each patient ensuring that their symtpom control is as good as can be achieved.

There is next to no private work done, it is all based out of public hospitals/hospices, for precisely the reasons I have just listed. So who stands to benefit? What is this so-called industry that is working against the genuine interests of patients in order to protect its revenue base?

<That alone makes no sense, because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, and certainly not the government, has any right to dictate to me what happens to my (or anyone elses) body.

I am the one to make that choice, and nobody will ever take that away from me. They can take away my control if they can pry it from my cold dead stiff hands.>

So what you you and Yabby are proposing is a bureaucracy to deal with the decision to kill oneself? Ever heard of suicide? Why make it so complicated, and how many people would want this service in any event? Even Yabby's example does not need any change to existing laws.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-08-14/perth-quadriplegic-wins-landmark-right-to-die/1391380

You accuse me of lacking compassion. Why, because I dont support the establishment of Death Inc? Well I dont, and I was especially turned off the idea by a circus on the Gold Coast a few years back, with all the death cultists championing their mascot for the cause. Well, she couldn't let them down, could she?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Crick

Government has no business involving itself in the decision to create or end human life: That should be the jurisdiction of the individual.

*So what you you and Yabby are proposing is a bureaucracy to deal with the decision to kill oneself? Ever heard of suicide?*

No Fester, a bureaucracy that regulates laws which let people
commit suicide, who are incapable of doing it without some
assistance. Those laws would be similar to those used by Exit
Switzerland, to determine suitable patients.

Letting Mr Rossiter starve himself to death is hardly humane.

Australian law prevents organisations like Exit Switzerland from
functioning in Australia. Why?

This argument is almost entirely predicated on a belief; that old people are useless?
There was a time when the Eskimos, stripped their old people jack naked; and took them outside in the snow to freeze to death?
Apparently freezing to death is very humane, with very little discomfort?
And all these old people are living even longer?
We could apply euthanasia to them, with little lead pills?
It would cost a lot less than the needle in the arm; now the favoured death row humane option for murderous criminals; which we dress up with terms like euthanasia?
When what we are advocating is the lethal and permanent dispatch of people; before their natural time; and, however we dress that up, it's still murder or assisted suicide?
[Doctors are trained to save lives, not take them!]
And a very slippery slope, which could ultimately be used as a form of population control?
Our palliative care and pain relief is improving almost beyond belief; but, not the cost of housing the old and the frail, which has become a extremely profitable money spinner for some multi-millionaire, private players; at least until the oldies' assets are completely stripped and they simply become a costly burden?
We should instead, use what we have now; as very low cost preventative medicine; to keep people active, alive and participating, until their final day, when we should hope; they simply die in their sleep; and in their own homes, when their allotted time is up!
The last approach would cost just a tiny fraction of what we shell out now; in so-called, age care!

I agree a natural death is better. Having experienced two euthanasia experiences in the family one a voluntary and one an involuntary, there is nothing nice about euthanasia.

Yabby

The means to enable a peaceful death are readily obtainable and inexpensive, but what business is it of mine to point you or anyone else in that direction?

<Letting Mr Rossiter starve himself to death is hardly humane.>

Do you know all the particulars of that case, Yabby? Did he have appropriate palliative care? What is clear from the case is that no-one can legally force you to live.

<Australian law prevents organisations like Exit Switzerland from
functioning in Australia. Why?>

How many dying people would meet the criteria you set? One in five thousand? One in fifty thousand? How many paying customers meet the criteria in Switzerland? Twenty percent? More? Less? Mr Minelli has made a fortune using compassion as a marketing tool. Looks very grubby to me.

It really amazes me how certain people are so reluctant to let others have the choice of ending their lives when in severe pain and loss of dignity, with no chance of recovery from their illness.

These very same people are only too happy to send young soldiers off to war, to them it does not really matter how many civilians are killed in the process.

Thank goodness I am a very compassionate Atheist, I do not have the hang ups that many of the religious fraternity seem to have, mainly the Catholic and Islam religions, there are many other religious people who also want to have the right to die with choice, these are the ones who have thought this issue through thoroughly.

Now! because I have used the word "compassionate" I do not want writers telling me about the God given book called the Bible or Koran, Atheists can't be compassionate, oh yes they can, being an Atheist I also believe in same sex marriage, stem cell research, rights of women in society etc, also volunteering to help people. I do not need the prop of the Bible or Koran where selective good readings are read to the public but not the bad bits, and there are many, one being to take a life should not be up to us but God, what rubbish,may I ask, what about war?

Please stay out of my life and I will stay out of yours, that includes my wish to have choice at the end of my life with Voluntary Euthanasia.

*The means to enable a peaceful death are readily obtainable and inexpensive*

Err, not when one is bed ridden and cannot move. If somebody else
provides suitable help for you, they can go to jail. That is
exactly the point here.

* Do you know all the particulars of that case, Yabby? Did he have appropriate palliative care? What is clear from the case is that no-one can legally force you to live.*

Yes, the case was extremely well publicised in WA. He had great care,
but could not move a muscle. Nothing more was his destiny, except to
stare at the ceiling. Starving to death, which is the only option
that we granted him, is frankly cruel. So why do it?

*How many dying people would meet the criteria you set?*

Based on the Swiss figures of 2-300 a year, multiply that by 3,
as our population is about 3 times larger. So those hundreds of
people don't matter then? Why?

*Mr Minelli has made a fortune using compassion as a marketing tool. Looks very grubby to me.*

Mr Mintelli is not a member of Exit. We don't know his figures as
its a private company. Given that foreigners pay thousands for
his services, it just shows how desperate people are, in that state
of health to travel from all over the place, to finally have some
kind of dignified death. So why should Australians have to travel to
Switzerland? Why not allow people access to the same drugs here,
as are available in Switzerland. Instead Australia threatens people
with half million dollar fines and 25 year jail sentences, for
smuggling Nembutal. Why can't we have humane laws as the Swiss have?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the gist of this entire article, stripped of sophistry, was:

Giving people a choice about dying isn't really giving them a choice, because the doctor has the final say. Thus, we shouldn't give them any choice at all.

Which, frankly, is a contemptible line of logic.

<Err, not when one is bed ridden and cannot move. If somebody else
provides suitable help for you, they can go to jail. That is
exactly the point here.>

And what point is that, Yabby? It is a criminal offence to perform the act which causes death. So the actual figure for such cases of assisted suicide in Switzerland is zero, not 200-300 as you claim.

<Starving to death, which is the only option
that we granted him, is frankly cruel. So why do it?>

No other option in Switzerland either, but maybe it isn't as cruel a death as you claim.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Schiavo/story?id=531907&page=1

*Assisted suicide is, however, possible and legal; according to article 115 of the
Swiss Penal Code provided the person who practices it does not have a selfish motive.
Assisted suicide gives the person who wishes to die the means of committing
suicide in a non-violent way. This is not punishable according to Swiss legislation,
which accepts the idea that a person wishing to bring his or her life to an end can
be helped to do so.*

There you go Fester, if you'd read the two URLs which I posted, you
might understand it.

If a doctor in Australia wrote out a script for Nembutal and somebody
helped the patient, prepared it and the patient committed suicide,
those assisting the patient would go to jail. Not so in Switzerland.

You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole here Fester,
but keep digging lol.

Nonsense, Yabby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide#Switzerland

<The person helping also has to avoid actually doing the act that leads to death, lest they be convicted under Article 114: Killing on request (Tötung auf Verlangen) - A person who, for decent reasons, especially compassion, kills a person on the basis of his or her serious and insistent request, will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment (Gefängnis). For instance, it should be the suicide subject who actually presses the syringe or takes the pill, after the helper had prepared the setup.[25] This way the country can criminalise certain controversial acts, which many of its people would oppose, while legalising a narrow range of assistive acts for some of those seeking help to end their lives.>

Those who oppose a person making the choice of when their life and participation in life has ended, either have not visited a hospice or an aged care facility.
I pity the relatives and friends of these people who are anti euthanasia, as when it comes to lifes end, these people are happy to see their relatives and friends suffer.

*For instance, it should be the suicide subject who actually presses the syringe or takes the pill, after the helper had prepared the setup*

Exactly Fester! You still don't get it however, even after reading
your own quotes. Euthanasia is illegal in Switzerland, but
suicide and assisting suicide under certain conditions, are
quite legal. Had you bothered to read what I quoted, you would
get it. But no, we try and be a smartarse, so we keep digging.

The doctor or the assistant do not inject the patient, but let
him/her drink the prepared drink. The patient chooses to drink the
drink. One is euthanasia, the other is suicide.

After its all over, Exit usually ring the police and the death
is reported as suicide, all quite legal.

>>The means to enable a peaceful death are readily obtainable and inexpensive<<

Really, Fester? Then perhaps you could explain to me why over 50% of suicides are by hanging, which is pretty much the antithesis of a peaceful death*.

If the means to achieve a peaceful death by suicide are as readily obtainable as you'd have us believe, why aren't more people availing themselves of them?

Unless this is sort of thing is what you meant by 'readily obtainable and inexpensive':

>>Australia threatens people with half million dollar fines and 25 year jail sentences, for smuggling Nembutal.<<

In which case I suggest you google up a decent dictionary and search for the words 'readily', 'obtainable' and 'inexpensive'.

* Death by hanging is a fine art. A skilled hangman can drop a man in such a way that his neck breaks, resulting in a rapid death. But an amateur (and there's precious few hangmen left these days) is likely to cock it up, and spend the last 15 minute or so of their life kicking and twisting on the end of their rope as they choke to death. This is regarded as such an unpleasant way to die that botched hangings were one of the main motivations for replacing hanging with electrocution as a means of execution.

I'm not being a smartarse Yabby. I am merely trying to make sense of what you are saying.

Let me remind you of a reason you gave for Australia having assisted suicide laws like Switzerland's:

<but why do you want to stop me
from having a right to make a decision about my life, if I were
say paralysed completely, unable to move anything but my eyes for
instance? >

So how does this person press a button, inject, or take a pill? For another to assist in such a case in Switzerland is a criminal offence. Are you claiming otherwise? Even a recent report on assisted suicide in Britain advised that such cases be ineligible.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/health/article/234517/10/Assisted-Suicide-Debate-Revived-in-the-UK

Yes, euthanasia laws sound reasonable and humane with the emotive "It's my life!", but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of regulating death, is it better than what we have?

<Those who oppose a person making the choice of when their life and participation in life has ended>

No, it is the euthanasia crowd who want to impose a bureaucracy on everyone that achieves what exactly? There is nothing to stop you killing yourself if you have a mind to. And to be frank, with all the hoops you would have to jump through to do it with state sanction it would be quicker to starve yourself.

<If the means to achieve a peaceful death by suicide are as readily obtainable as you'd have us believe, why aren't more people availing themselves of them?>

Well why dont you ask them, Anton? But dont knock yourself off like this guy. Instead, respect other people's property and the environment, and be mindful of the trauma your actions could inflict upon others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjEdLuqK1RQ

I admire workers like stickman.

Having witnessed my brother dying from a most painful cancer, the level of palliative was excellent. My brother did not want to hasten his departure and seized every treatment to prolong his time with his family. However he did not want to be resuscitated if his heart gave out first.

He fought and endured excruciating pain to retain what consciousness he could. It was always his choice.

At the end, when he and his family knew the pain was too great and it was time to go, he received enough pain relief to ease the pain and slipped from this life.

It was hard to see him struggle, but it was he who decided how much pain relief to get. I suspect that his battle might well have been over earlier if he had accepted less treatment and more pain relief.

Having witnessed my brother's fight I am not sure how I would have dealt with it, but I am now confident in the level and quality of palliative care.

The call for euthanasia is a demand that someone else takes a person's life. If you want to go early, why ask someone else to do that for you?

*I'm not being a smartarse Yabby. I am merely trying to make sense of what you are saying*

Well Fester, then simply read the first URL which I posted. The
surgeon who heads Exit in the French part of Switzerland, presented
a clear, logical, compassionate case, according to Swiss law.
Given that they charge nothing but an annual 30$ membership fee,
its clearly more like a charity.

*So how does this person press a button, inject, or take a pill?*

Electronics. They can devise just about anything for any purpose.
The point being, the person does it him herself. Most people can
usually still sip a straw.

*And to be frank, with all the hoops you would have to jump through to do it with state sanction it would be quicker to starve yourself*

Perhaps people should be able to decide for themselves, wether they
would like to pass away, in a dignified way, surrounded by friends
and family, peacefully, or wether they should starve to death.
Your example of it being peacefull was of a person in a vegetative
state. But try it just a bit, no food for a week and see how
you go and how pleasant it is.

*but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of regulating death, is it better than what we have?*

Well of course it is. Or we would not have desperate people trying
to get to Switzerland, we would not have a whole bunch of oldies
trying to smuggle in their stash of Nembutal. Just because you
would be happy to starve yourself to death, why inflict it on others
who could have far kinder and more humane options?

To all you people who are so anti VOLUNTARY Euthanasia, please explain to me what is the difference between hundreds of civilians being killed amd maimed in so called wars than someone like myself who wants to end his life the way he wants to, that is by VOLUNTARY Euthanasia when in severe pain and loss of dignity, there being no chance of recovery
WAR IS KILLING.
Let me choose my ending the way I want to, you can suffer your own way right to the end, it will not bother me one little bit when the morphine no longer works for you in a hospice and they are keeping you alive in your vegative state by feeding you through a tube in the stomach,go for it,but you must understand that is not what I want.
WAR IS NOT CHOICE.
VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA IS CHOICE.

>>Well why dont you ask them, Anton?<<

Because I am not a necromancer. This makes it extremely difficult to ask anything of somebody who has committed suicide (well, I suppose I can still ask them - but I won't be getting answer).

So why don't you answer the question instead of trying to avoid it by fobbing me off with irrelevant clips from Robocop (an excellent film, but what does Cool Sideburns Man's accidental death have to do with a discussion of suicide?). After all, I did pose the question to you and not suicides.

<what does Cool Sideburns Man's accidental death have to do with a discussion of suicide?>

I thought it quite relevant, Anton. Cool Sideburns Man, as you call him, suffered an accident which brought on a painful and terminal condition which made him want to end his life. He sought assistance from his co-crim, but as that wasn't forthcoming he had to throw himself in front of a car driven by another co-crim. Much quicker and simpler than following a bureaucratic process for assisted suicide, and given that his co-crims were psychopaths, I dont think there would be much chance of ongoing trauma as witness to his dramatic death.

As for your question, who knows? But I think it wrong to assume that suicidal people will necessarily choose the most painless and peaceful death.

Fester says this:

"Government has no business involving itself in the decision to create or end human life: That should be the jurisdiction of the individual."

My response is very simple.

If the government has no business involving itself in the decision to end or create human life, then why, pray tell, is abortion legal?

Your response will be that it's the woman's choice.

Okay, no problems. The government doesn't NEED to be involved in euthanasia AT ALL, it merely has to end the war on drugs and allow people to buy barbiturates. See, that was easy. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Dried Fig

The issue of suicide is worth considering. Suicidal urges can present sporadically and unpredictably, and may be precipitated by drugs or alcohol. Having lethal drugs readily available may lead to more deaths. The example of thallium use in Sydney would suggest that people find other uses for such things as well.

I've no objection to the decriminalisation of drug use, but such a course would need to be carefully regulated.

<The government doesn't NEED to be involved in euthanasia AT ALL>

Kill yourself and it is your business: Involve another and you leave that personal jurisdiction. But I agree with minimising government involvement, hence my objection to more bureaucracy. I think the Brits have a better system than the Swiss.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8710000/Locked-in-syndrome-man-asks-court-to-let-doctors-help-him-die.html

I could understand the connection in Paul Russel's article about used cars and suicide, I think you had better re-think that metaphor, Russel.

I get the impression, from asking my own friends and aquaintances, that the overwhelming majority of people approve of euthenasia. The most stalward opponents of euthenasia are Catholics.

So, it seems to me, that the Catholic Church is dictating to the Australian people what our legal rights should be in this matter. This is why my belief in "Freedom of Religion" is qualified. Freedom of religion is a nice principle, but I don't see why the Australian public should have much tolerance for international organisations, who pay no taxes, yet who meddle in our democratic processes.

I am a democrat. Australia should have a referenda on this matter and my own feeling is that those people in favour of euthenasia will win in a landslide. If I am wrong, I will accept the umpires decision. But the decision will be made by the Australian people, not by the King of Rome.

Don't give me any crap about "the tyranny of the majority.' This is a democracy, sunshine, majority rules.

Those people who oppose euthenasia and democracy can then exercise their democratic rights and immigrate back to some priest and mullah infested cesspit where democracy usually does not rule. Those undemocratic religious cesspit countries can then peacefuly continue to be poverty stricken and strife torn, while Australian society continues to advance.

A much better idea is to use preventative medicine to keep the often tragic old and frail in far better health; and, simply not needing to contemplate assisted suicide. There is so much more we could do; if the emphasis was on the patient instead of the profit/loss sheet of big pharma or their affiliates?
Sure the diet needs to be changed, with processed foods all but eliminated; and, an exercise regime established if possible; but, that is not a substitute for the missing preventative health care therapies; rigidly resisted by a large section of the medical fraternity?
Why? Well some might suggest there's not as much money in preventative health; much of which could be administered by a far less expensive nurse practitioner.

>>A much better idea is to use preventative medicine to keep the often tragic old and frail in far better health<<

Of course, Rhrosty. Poor old Ponce de Leon need not have wasted all that time searching for mythical fountains when all he had do was eat lots of fresh fruit & veg and go for a brisk walk every morning. If he'd done that, he would have never got sick, and would have lived for ever. Why, he'd still be walking around today.

The simple fact is that getting sick and dying is pretty much what old people do best. And all the preventative medicine in the world won't change that, merely delay for it a few years. Of course, a few extra years of good-quality of life might be worth all that healthy living. But it is disingenuous to suggest that healthy living will prevent geriatric diseases, because it won't. At best, it will just postpone them for a while.

It is arguable whether it's actually a good thing to keep people alive for longer and longer as they get older. I strongly recommend that everybody have a read (or hopefully, a re-read) of 'Gulliver's Travels', paying particular heed to Gulliver's journey to Luggnagg. Are we trying to create our own struldbrugs? And if so, is it really a wise idea?

*A much better idea is to use preventative medicine to keep the often tragic old and frail in far better health; and, simply not needing to contemplate assisted suicide.*

Well that is wonderful Rhrosty, but let me remind you, that in the
end, every single one of us, without exception, will have a tragic
ending.

The question is how it ends. Not all are fortunate enough to
die of a good old heart attack in the middle of the night. No matter
how good the preventative medicine, some will continue to be struck
by incurable diseases, or even accidents, sooner or later.
Tomorrow, you could be hit by a proverbial bus.

When for whatever reason, the body fails completely and only the
mind is left functioning, basically one is trapped. I feel great
empathy for people in that condition, who simply want a say about
their future. Why should they not have a say about it?

Fight until your last breathe by all means, but please don't try
and deny others the humane right to make choices about the rest of
their lives and how they want to live it

But Yabby, the example you gave to justify having assisted suicide laws was of locked in syndrome, an extremely rare condition. And whilst Dr Phil has made the Blinkinator, has it ever been used? Have a look at what the Brits are doing: Simpler and effective. The truth is that cases to justify such laws are incredibly rare, and for such unfortunate people, other avenues are available which require no change to existing laws.

<It is arguable whether it's actually a good thing to keep people alive for longer and longer as they get older.>

Anton, dont you think you're being a little hypocritical by only supporting the right of elderly people to make their lives shorter? I think Rhrosty makes a good point, and I for one would rather see old people healthy and productive instead of regarded as useless and lined up at assisted suicide clinics.

*The person has to be suffering from an incurable disease, which can be predicted to have a fatal outcome. And the illness must also result in mental and physical suffering that makes the person's life unbearable.*

Fester, I simply quoted one example. The above was snipped from
the 2nd URl which I quoted on this thread, where Swiss Info did
an interview with Jerome Sobel of Exit Switzerland. Given the
Exit 2007 figures also quoted, of 245 patients, multiply that
by 3 to give you an Australian figure. Why should these people
not have a choice, other then your starving to death solution?

Why not a dignified and peaceful death, with friends and family?
Why do you want to deny these people a choice about their own lives?

Fester might have a " I can just starve to death" perspective now,
but wait until you are old, frail and sick. You might then remember
this discussion. Your inability to empathise with these people,
your denial of them having the right to choose.If their perspective
is different to yours, on what grounds do you want to deny them
what should be their free choice?

<Given the
Exit 2007 figures also quoted, of 245 patients, multiply that
by 3 to give you an Australian figure. >

Is that the right way to calculate the figure? Does it include all the foreigners assisted, or only Swiss nationals? And for what reasons did the people kill themselves. It seems very difficult to get any meaningful stats.

<Why do you want to deny these people a choice about their own lives?>

I deny them no such thing, Yabby, but you must realise that you cannot change laws without having unexpected consequences. For example, to have such means readily available could see more suicides. Would that be a good thing? What safeguards would you have to protect against this. After all, not all suicidal people are suicidal all the time, are they?

*Is that the right way to calculate the figure? Does it include all the foreigners assisted, or only Swiss nationals? And for what reasons did the people kill themselves*

Yes Fester, its the right way to calculate the figure, which you
would have to agree with, if you'd read and understood both articles.
The Exit figures apply only to Swiss Citizens or residents. Dignitas
deals with foreigners. IIRC their figures were 197, its quoted in
the stats of the second article.

People killed themselves when they matched the Exist criteria,
as has been quoted, ie terminal disease, lots of suffering etc.
Read both articles, its all there.

*but you must realise that you cannot change laws without having unexpected consequences*

So why should the adoption of the Swiss laws, have unintended
consequences that don't apply to Swiss people, where those laws
have been in place for some time?

*What safeguards would you have to protect against this.*

Applying the same safeguards as Exit Switzerland apply to their
patients.They are listed in the first URL.

<Applying the same safeguards as Exit Switzerland apply to their
patients.They are listed in the first URL.>

Yabby, the url you provided lists five conditions to be met before providing the service. Those conditions are not Swiss law, but the conditions set by an organisation. So we would need different laws to the Swiss, according to the guidelines you chose.

<IIRC their figures were 197>

I cannot find such a figure in either of your links.

I did find this link from The Guardian giving some Dignitas stats,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/25/assisted-suicide-dignitas-statistics

which listed a cumulative 112 assisted suicides over a twelve year period.

I was concerned by the comment of this ex- Dignitas employee

'production line of death concerned only with profits'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_%28assisted_dying_organisation%29

*which listed a cumulative 112 assisted suicides over a twelve year period*

Not so, Fester. Your very own URL lists 1041 as the cumulative total,
if you move the cursor at the bottom to the right, which adds up
countries and years. Members are totalled too, around 5000.

On my URL, if you look at the top right under "Key Facts",
the 2006 figure is listed as 195, which matches the figure for that
year provided by your URL.

*Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code dealing with cases of inciting and assisting suicides
stipulates that: “Anyone with a selfish motive who incites a person to commit
suicide or who helps that person to commit suicide, if that suicide is consummated
or attempted, will be punished by a maximum of 5 years reclusion or imprisonment”.*

The above snippet gives the law the power to act. If Dignitas or
anyone else was inciting people to commit suicide to make money,
they would land up in jail.

Yabby

I asked you the number of Swiss nationals provided assisted suicide annually. The figure you stated was 197. Okay, the total for 2006 was 195, of which fifteen were Swiss nationals. Three years later and the figure had more than halved to 89, with the number of Swiss nationals seeking the service falling by nearly 75% to four.

<The above snippet gives the law the power to act.>

Yes, but if Dignitas were like its disgruntled ex-employee claimed, the reality would be that the law is difficult to enforce and open to abuse. And again if this were true, what would Dignitas' stats have been had they acted in accordance with the law?

One more observation on the checklist of Exit International is that it does not include an assessment of the patient's standard of care, specifically a determination that it is optimal. I would have thought such a condition paramount for informed consent.

*I asked you the number of Swiss nationals provided assisted suicide annually. The figure you stated was 197*

Sheesh Fester, I made no such claim, why are you purposefully playing
dumb here?

My figure from memory for Dignitas was 197, when it was 195, nearly
all foreigners. My figures for Exit, which are all Swiss, was 245.
If you really want to be pedantic about the Swiss figures, add
the 245 from Exit with the handful from Dignitas. Exit acts
more as a charity for locals, Dignitas more as a business for foreigners.

*Yes, but if Dignitas were like its disgruntled ex-employee claimed, the reality would be that the law is difficult to enforce and open to abuse.*

Perhaps the Swiss Govt is a better judge of that, then a poster like
yourself, who has read 4 lines on Wickipedia. To me the law is quite
clear. If Dignitas broke it, they could go to jail. Digruntled ex
employees tend to make all sorts of claims. Some don't understand
either, that being a business, Dignitas has to make a profit or it
shuts down. Their charges seem quite reasonable to me. The question
arises, why they should have any clients at all. As Europe adopts
more humane laws country by country, people won't have to travel to
Switzerland anymore, but can die with dignity and peacefully at home,
with loved ones, family etc.

The question that it comes down to is this: If Fester wants to commit
suicide tomorrow, AFAIK that would be quite legal. The same rights
are not shown to the terminally ill, who want a say about their
life. Those sick of pain, sick of the struggle, who want to die with
dignity, surrounded by their families. Our laws are as they are,
purely because of religious dogma. The Christian story goes that
Jesus suffered on the cross for you, so a bit of suffering is no
big deal. I see absolutaly no reason, why the Christian lobby should
be allowed to enforce their dogma on the rest of us.

Yabby,

It is certainly tempting to blame the Christian lobby for the fact that voluntary euthanasia is illegal, and they are certainly cheerleaders for banning it, but are they really the main culprits? I see it as much like mass migration, which is continued in force despite the lack of per capita economic benefit and the pressure on the environment and on infrastructure and public services. The "humanitarian" Left are certainly cheerleading for it, but the main factors are the distributional benefits to the people at the top in corporate Australia, from bigger markets, high prices for real estate and other vital resources, and cheap labour.

Similarly, you might follow the money here. Approximately half of the the lifetime cost of your health care is likely to be incurred in the last six months of life. A great many jobs and huge industries, supplying pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, for example, depend on this flow of money. This is similar to the case of the War on Drugs in the US, which cannot be abandoned, even though it is a failure and wreaking havoc in Mexico, because so many livelihoods depend on it.

The Christian lobby has lost on virtually every other issue: property rights and votes for women, contraception and abortion, no-fault divorce, blasphemy, lessons on evolution and other challenges to fundamentalist dogma in the schools, Sunday trading, etc., etc. Why would euthanasia be different?

*Why would euthanasia be different?*

Divergence, because of the reality of realpolitik. Never forget,
it only takes a small % of votes to swing an election and parties
spend a whole heap of time and money, crunching numbers.

Whilst surveys show that something like 80% plus of the population
are for voluntary euthanasia, its not a vote changer. Unlike say
contraception or abortion, which would have people demonstrating in
the streets, if say a Tony Abbott with his Catholic values, tried
to change them. He is pragmatic enought to understand that.

When the NT introduced voluntary euthanasia, it was the Catholic
political lobby, led by Kevin Andrews, which introduced legislation
to block it, which they did.

For some of the religious lobby, its a huge issue, enough to change
their votes, politicians are aware of that so none of the big parties
have the testicles to tackle it. They have votes to lose but few to
gain, if they did.

If we look at the Swiss figures and say we introduced similar legislation
here, it might only be 750 people a year who would
take advantage of the changed law. Yet they are the weakest,
the bed ridden, the suffering, those who are hardly in a position
to fight for their rights. So its easy for politicians to gloss
over them and argue about gay marriage and other such trivia.

Politicians are seemingly much more interested in winning the next
election, then be concerned with the human rights of these people.
So they continue to suffer and we ignore them, all very sad really.

All it would take really, is a for a single politician to introduce
a private members bill, along the guidelines that Exit in Switzerland
use. That would force the debate into the open and perhaps finally
bring about change. No political party as such will tackle it.

Democratic majorities or even lack of a majority is neither here nor there as far as the natural and moral law is concerned. The right to life as well as the living out one's life is not created by legislation but exists as a reality, in-built if you will, into our very nature as human persons. The State is there to merely ratify human life. Traffic rules are on a lower level and are governed by the State. Human life is not on the same level as traffic rules.

The Catholic Church is not to be feared nor are its members because of adhering to the natural and moral laws self evident to our very natures and knowable by all.

Well there is the problem, Webby. People like yourself, who think that
your religious dogma should be above the law and above what people
want to determine about their own lives.

People have everything to fear from the Catholic Church, for no doubt
more will suffer to their last breathe, in the name of religious
dogma, when there are far more dignified and humane options.

The Taliban too think that their dogma should be above what people
think about their own lives. Sadly that puts the Catholic Church
at a similar level, the Christian Taliban. How sad.

I agree with you Yabby, all Catholics worry me with their dogma on life issues, once a Catholic always a Catholic deep down, brain washing starts from Catholic parents to children at a very early age.
Tony Abbott worries me if he became Prime Minister, like Tom Kenyon our State Parliamentarian who is also a Catholic,having recently brought up with him the subject of Voluntary Euthanasia, it is like banging your head against a brick wall, his overriding Catholic teaching forbids VE as it is taking life away, which should only be decided by his Catholic God, but war is OK by him, that is different, I do not see that, if Tony became PM he would be lead by his Catholic teaching and not what the majority of people may want. I feel very uneasy with a Catholic in control of the people.

Dear Yabby

You are expressing prejudice against Catholics in a similar way to the anti-Catholic religious we used to see in past generations. Are you reviving that tradition?

Yabby, you assumed that religious dogma is above the law. The opposite is the case and this is not brainwashing as you imagine. Law is based upon universals which are sourced from the natural and moral law found in human hearts and in-built into our natures. Love and treat one another as we would like ot be treated is a golden rule here. Hence the right to life for everyone without downgrading to sub or non-human status the lives of unborn babies is a good start. Follow on with dignified care for the elederly and those suffering from disease and illness. Palliative care is not about prolonging life unnecessarily. Pain can be eased andpatients die without killing them.

The kind of changes based upon your legal positivist views are actualy desires to be above the law by abolishing existing laws in favour of your own that are not founded upon common law precedents or statutes from our earlier legal decisions founded upon natural and moral considerations. Law is not based upon your feelings to be changed when you like. It is not arbitrary or 'might/majority equals right'. That would be to make of the law an ass as the old saying goes.

To equate the apostolic Christian teachings with the Taliban is plainly ridiculous. The only Catholic or Protestant Taliban are individuals who have failed to live by the Gospel and the commandments lived out in kindness.

Dear Ojnab

I worry about anyone, without prejudice to their religion or lack thereof, who assumes that Catholic parents are going to hide/deny the Faith and the joy it brings, to their own children. If you love the Catholic teaching, it would be curious not to pass it on.

You worry me for being worried about those wh have as their first principle- life issues.
I am a Labor voter and so am not 'brainwashed' to vote for Tony Abbott because he is a Catholic. But to be fair to Mr Abbott, he ought to be influenced by the natural and moral law tradition found within the Catholic Faith- as we all ought to be ( which incidentially can be discovered ouside of the Church within your very nature and though the proper use of reason. Your prejudice against Mr Abbott mirrors the deep bible belt prejudice against JF Kennedy who was quizzed about what his Catholic Faith would mean to him should be become the President of the United States. Sadly JFK didn't stand up and give a clear answer I feel when he ought to have done. Belloc on the other hand, when he was similarly quizzed in a public forum in the UK, basically told his mainly Protestant audience that he was going to be totally Catholic and that if they didn't like it then not to vote for him and he would cop that sweet. Belloc went on to win in his electorate.

*Love and treat one another as we would like ot be treated is a golden rule here*

Exactly, Webby. So you want to deny millions of us that right,
in the name of Catholic dogma. Keep Catholic dogma for believing
Catholics, don't burden the rest of us with it. Shame on the
Catholic Taliban for being so dogmatic and unreasonable, just
like the Taliban.

Let us who wish to have access to Voluntary Euthanasia as a right for us, it being your right to not have VE if you so wish,
it is called choice, but please do not bring the selective reading of the Bible into account, nearly all ministers of religion only read to the congregation the parts they want the audience to hear, not the many killings and slavery etc which are also part of the Bible readings.
I want to end my life the way I want to, it is my life, not yours, so keep out of my space, and I will yours.

Hear hear

David