*To change the law would be to show reckless indifference to those in our community who, for whatever reason, are vulnerable to coercion and abuse.*

Nonsense. To change the law to a similar one that exists in
Switzerland, would give comfort to thousands upon thousands of
oldies in our community, who want some say and control about what
happens to them. Right now the law is forcing them to become
criminals by tripping to Mexico, as the religious enforce their
dogma on the rest of us. Lets have a referendum on this one, given
that 80% of Australians think that the law should be changed.

Thanks Paul for an excellent article pointing out the truths the death industry just don't want to hear.

Comfort to the thousands of oldies Yabby? Do you mean our elderly who are already often made to feel they are a burden on their families and the taxpayer? The laws in Switzerland have been a slippery slope to others determining what a person might want as opposed to really ascertaining the wishes of an individual. To suggest our sick or elderly should seek suicide or assisted suicide as a 'right' is supporting the already oft felt need that others do not wish to care for them. It is not the easier solution for them, it is the easier solution for those who don't wish to expend a little effort in improving the quality of life for those who are suffering.

Let the ruling class 'compassionately assist'(ha!) in the deaths of the little people. Great idea government, what could go wrong?!

DebbiG, you clearly don't know much about how Exit Switzerland
operates. Perhaps you should inform yourself. Here is a good
start:

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

Even Martin doesen't get it, for of course the Swiss Govt
is as such not involved.

Perhaps its just beyond your ability to empathise with those
who decide not to struggle and gasp until their last breathe.
Suffer for Jesus if you want to, but don't force that dogma
onto people like myself.

No person in Switzerland commits suicide against their own
free will and suicide in Australia is not illegal. Some people
simply want choice in these matters and not be dicated to, by
the rest of you. You should have the humility and compassion
to respect their wishes.

Is a referendum too much to hope for?
Unfortunately, I fear it is. And that is one of many not-good looks in this debate.
Eventually our pollies will be forced to address the issue, but perhaps not until we oldies reach a bigger critical mass. Only then will the powers that be realise that left unaddressed the cost of ageing will simply swamp the health budget.
Then we will all learn if it really is 80% in favor. I know I'll be voting for it, if it's held in my time.
But safeguards are safeguards, and another of the not-good looks is when a person assisting another to commit suicide is the sole beneficiary of that other person's will.
So not a good look, I'm surprised the people mentioned in the article tried it on.
Un-good.

Yabby, marginalising an argument on the basis of religion is avoiding the issue, especially when neither commenter had proposed a religious argument. Deciding that contributors don't have direct experience of death or dying is another clue that you don't have enough rational argument. Clearly the system does NOT work well in Switzerland regardless of the operations of Exit Switzerland. It is just as clear that this is an area with the potential for enormous exploitation of both the elderly and the physically and mentally unwell. Until there exists absolute ways to protect the vulnerable the law should not be changed. To date, I have not seen such protections anywhere.

One of my concerns is that if we make assisted suicide legal then people who are lonely and depressed will feel that's exactly what society and people in general want them to do. We shouldn't need situations where your main beneficiary procures the drugs and is just waiting for you to depart this world because they're in debt to realise that there are so many people suffering from depression that such a move would be tantamount to telling them to top themselves. Many people think about suicide, and we should be trying to improve their lives, not encouraging them to commit suicide and giving them a helping hand. What sort of person says "oh, you don't feel like life's worth living anymore - okay, let me help you kill yourself!"? Why do we have suicide prevention programmes if assisted suicide is such a great idea? Suicide is bad enough, but when you add another person into the equation it creates all sorts of doubts, as shown by the situation in this article.

DebbieG, clearly the operations of Exit Switzerland work very well.
There is no good reason that Australia could not adopt laws based
on their system, much suffering could be avoided and Australians
would not have to break the law and become smugglers, just to
have choice about their lives.

As for Runner and Martin, they spend their days promoting religious
dogma on OLO. I doubt if they have suddenly been struck by lightning.

Lets have a referendum on this and sort it out, once and for all.

I'm trying to see this from my atheist point of view, that we each have one - incredibly valuable - life and we shouldn't throw it away. That there is no heaven, no after-life, so when we go, we go. Forever.

Hey ! What was that ?! That was our one-and-only little flash of eternity.

Let's see: this guy stands to be sole heir of some other guy's assets, and he goes to Mexico, comes back, dopes up his friend and his friend dies that day. His friend wasn't suffering from any life-threatening disease, just felt a bit depressed at times. Should he be charged with any crime ?

Hmmmmm ...... that's a tough one.

Some of you b@stards have got to be joking .......

I've seen quite a few people die, none of them in agony or pleading to be 'let go'. So where are your thousands, Yabby ?

Sounds to me Joe, that whilst you sometimes write great posts, in
this case, your nick of Loudmouth is an apt description.

Perhaps you should read the two newspaper articles that link to the
case, to gain a bit further understanding.
Just a few points:

The two had known one another for 30 years.
Ward had long before hand asked Nielsen to manage some financial
affairs.
After a stroke in 2007, Ward made it clear that he wished to take
his own life, should circumstances amount to a situation where he was
no longer independant or had quality of life. Contact with Exit
was taken up. Read the rest yourself before loudmouthing.

The thing is however, under Swiss law, this case would still have
been a crime, for nobody who stands to benefit, can be involved.
But then, under Swiss law, Ward would have had another option apart
from asking a thirty year long friend for help to go to Mexico for him.
What friend of yours would risk lifelong jail for you?

The thousands are out there, Joe. Given that what they are doing
is considered a crime in Australia they are perhaps unlikely to tell you.
But if you bother to inform yourself, you'll find out.

I can only hope that this verdict will serve as a deterrent to other "predators" who may think that they will profit by preying on lonely seniors!

Yabby,

As I've written many times before on earlier threads, I'm in favour of legalising suicide, that, as a last resort, it should not be a criminal act that a person finds a way to kill him/herself. But when it involves another person, it's adifferent ball-game: how do you distinguish suicide from murder in that case ?

And when it involves another person who stands to benefit, how do you distinguish suicide from premeditated murder for gain ?

My understanding is that the deceased in this case was not incapacitated, and wasn't even in any sort of pain, only deep depression - not that pain should be an incitement to kill somebody. Suicide should be an act of self-determination: involve someone else and it ceases to be so.

Cheers,

Joe

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/queensland-teacher-jailed-for-helping-suicide-of-man-76/story-e6frg6nf-1226272723498

Joe, if you read just one article of the many, Ward had suffered
a stroke and upon his second stroke he acted. He clearly mistrusted
the medical industry and given that he'd thought about this for
a couple of years, no, it was not the case of a healthy adult having
a depressing moment. Just a very different perspective of life,
to the one that you have.

Suicide is in fact legal in Australia. Its just a question of the
method. Plastic bags, guns, jumping in front of a train whatever,
are not the most pleasant of methods. Some people are incapacitated
and can't choose, what is perfectly legal for others. In Perth,
Rossiter only got one choice, ie starve himself to death, as he was
bedridden.

Nembutal is what we use for our pets, when we feel they should suffer
no more. Yet we cannot make that same choice about our own lives,
even though suicide is quite legal. Read the link that I provided
earlier about the rules that Exit Switzerland enforces and tell me
what is wrong with those.

Hi Yabby,

I have no problem with suicide, or with Exit Switzerland, as long as people are aware of counselling services, and still make up their minds, weighing up all the implications and options and consequences, to take their own lives.

But when another person is involved in some way, the game changes. In this case, the two factors - that

(a) Nielsen procured the means, and may have been present when Ward took the Nembutal; and

(b) that Nielsen stood to gain from Ward's death

- make all the difference.

In fact, each factor compounds the culpability. If Nielsen had had half a brain and shot through to Perth or somewhere far away, with a promise from Ward that he wouldn't do it for a week or so - to literally put some space and time between them - then Nielsen may have been in the clear.

But there would still be the unavoidable facts that he, and he alone, procured the material for Ward to kill himself, and he, and he alone, stood to gain from the death. Isn't that so ? Isn't that getting pretty close to manslaughter, or death through negligence ?

Not the best possible example for your cause :(

Cheers,

Joe

Oh I fully agree Joe, that it is not a good example. I also fully
agree that the two bungled it, for neither are/were criminals, so
did not think alot those lines.

My initial post was against Russel, who is harping on about this,
as that is seemingly what the organisation that he works for,
pays him to do. I wonder how much funding that they receive from
the Catholic Church.

The judge had no choice in the matter, as assisting anyone with
suicide is breaking the law in Australia. So even if all of Nielsen's
motives were of good intent, ie to help his friend, by law he is
still guilty. Ward could not choose the Swiss option, as our law
is backward, which is my point.

But the devil is always in the details and if you examine the details, to decide wether Nielsen did it for the money or to help
his friend, who clearly chose this option, then its fairly clear
that he did it to help his friend.

Nielsen is a teacher, an intellectual, with a history of helping
older people. He'd known Ward for 30 years and Ward had nobody
closer, as previously he'd left his estate to meditation group,
before he changed his will, two years earlier.

Ward wrote a suicide note and drank champagne when he took the
Nembutal. He was hardly forced and had clearly been thinking about
this for years.

So if I had no close relatives, would I leave a good chunk of my
estate to a 30 year long friend who risked going to jail for years
for me? Absolutaly I would