Who are the the vulnerable in the euthanasia debate? Well we all are. At some point we all will experience depression, a cancer diagnosis, the death of a dearly beloved or a long held dream, or almost unbearable loneliness.
The article is very well researched and extremely cogent. People who express a wish to die are usually calling for help, or someone empathetic to simply listen, while they unburden.
Doctors are trained to save lives rather than end them; and, the improvement in palliative care and pain alleviating drugs is nothing short of remarkable.
I know just how hard it is to watch someone suffer and slowly die. At these times I ask myself, what would I have for myself?
And given I survived multiple spinal fractures, heat stroke, pneumonia, multiple P/E's to both lungs and DVT's in three limbs.
It is an informed query?
Even so, my quality of life is fair to middling; and I believe, I still have many worthwhile things to contribute; therefore, I am pleased to be still alive, even though through the very slow recovery process, I went as low as one can go!
Had I accessed, a champing at the bit, Doctor death at that very low moment, I would have never lived to regret it!
Anyway, the very idea of assisted suicide is entirely abhorrent in someone trained to save lives! Moreover, any decision based on an entirely emotional response, is invariably the wrong one!
Capishe? Rhrosty.

>>how do we learn to care better?<<

By permitting euthanasia when it is appropriate.

Forcing people to endure horrific suffering simply because we've got it into our heads that invisible sky daddy is sovereign over an individual's body and mind rather than the individual themselves does not show caring or compassion or Christian virtue. Quite the opposite actually: it shows a sadism so vicious and ugly that I'd recommend Paul visit a psychiatrist and have them administer a PCL-R test.

Torture isn't just illegal: it is very very wrong. It is so wrong that a lot of people oppose it outright. Other people see a little more grey area - but even those who think it is okay to waterboard terrorist suspects because they might spill the beans on their plans are still going to draw the line at torturing the terminally ill because sky daddy said suicide is sinful.

Which is what this is really all about isn't it Paul? After all which is more abusive to elders: allowing them to die a dignified death at the time of their choosing or forcing them to live on in suffering until nature takes its course? So your opposition to euthanasia obviously isn't based only on concern for the well-being of the elderly: you're quite happy to see them abused it doesn't conflict with your philosophical views regarding suicide.

Which you're quite welcome to hold BTW. I'm guessing you're from a Catholic background like myself and I am familiar with their teachings on the sinful nature of suicide. Euthanasia laws won't force you to abandon these beliefs: it will still be every man's God-given right not to commit suicide just like it always has been. All we are asking is that suffering people who don't have capacity or the inclination to jump off a bridge be allowed the choice - not the obligation - of having a doctor end their in a painless and dignified manner. Seems fair enough doesn't it?

Cheers,

Tony

The vulnerable are people like Mr Rossiter of Perth, who was trapped
in his own body by his circumstances and denied a choice about the
matter by our system. Basically that is torture IMHO and the option
we gave him, was the choice to starve himself to death. Hardly
compassionate.

No wonder that thousands of oldies are joining Exit and are making
sure that when the law is an ass, its time to take things into their
own hands and plan ahead. Those who don't, can land up being
tortured by our system, as was Mr Rossiter and others.

This debate always comes back to the same old same old:
If I as an advocate of voluntary euthanasia do not insist on you taking the option, why do you as opponents of voluntary euthanasia insist the I may not have the option?
All we are really asking is that you get out of our way, as we are more than willing to get out of yours.

It's interesting that the opponents of both euthanasia and gay marriage are now doing their best to appear as advocates of sweet reason now their more aggressive tactics have failed. 'Just think about it a little, and you'll see it's wrong. Don't see it? Obviously you haven't thought enough!'

It's nice to see them gradually giving ground, but it's a shame about the nauseating condescension that goes with it.

"... people who receive news of a diagnosis of cancer were 12.6 times more likely to commit suicide than people of a similar background who were cancer free ..."

Why do you think that is? Because they are frightened they might suffer uncontrollable pain or loss of autonomy and dignity? Of course many feel they should take their lives while they still have that option!

It's understandable when diagnosed with a terminal disease, you may think you need to top yourself while you still have the ability to do so. A local man did just that. Diagnosed with treatable (not terminal) bowel cancer, he shot himself in the head.If only he'd been told if it came to a point in his treatment where he wanted that option, he'd be able to choose it, he may well have tried the treatment first.

As indicated by your own stats, you ADD to the stress of terminally ill patients giving them no option but to end their lives prematurely.

In Oregon,most patients who have PAS approved don't even fill the prescription and most who do don't take the barbituate. Knowing they have an 'out', if they need it, provides an important psychological boost which sustains most people - it LOWERS suicidal ideation.

For those who do decide to hasten their death, it's a well-considered choice taken after consultation with their doctor and family. VE and PAS are most often used by people with terminal cancer - most often in the last few days or hours of their 'natural' lives.

Between 1997 when PAS became legal in Oregon, and 2009, 460 Oregonians chose to hasten their deaths using a legally prescribed drug. Uptake is incredibly low - 19.3 deaths per 10,000 and the recipients of the prescriptions are overwhelmingly white, middle-class, and well-educated.

People are not making hasty decisions. They are making intelligent, well-considered decisions based on their personal experience and values.

You, Paul, are free to make your own decisions based on your personal religious values. You have no right to interfere with the end of life decisions of me and my family.

*It's interesting that the opponents of both euthanasia and gay marriage are now doing their best to appear as advocates of sweet reason now their more aggressive tactics have failed*

Well it's all part of very clever Catholic lobbying tactics. No
need to even mention the church. Fact is, the church is a hugely
wealthy organisation with plenty of resources at their disposal,
to use to push their barrow politically.

Recent advances have demonstrated that even irreversible spinal cord damage may be reversible! The technology/discovery clearly demonstrates that the body, given the right assistance, may be able to not only reverse spinal cord injury but brain damage as well.
It is early days, but in 5-10 years people may recover from head trauma injuries, strokes etc, that previously would have condemned them to a lifetime locked inside useless bodies.
Recently, a Gold Coast Widow took her own life via assisted suicide. She had recently been treated for cancer. She developed adhesions, which she interpreted as the return of cancer?
She manifestly wallowed in self pity, a problem shared by many euthanasia advocates?
The post mortem showed that she was completely clear of cancer, and that the minor adhesions, although painful, were treatable. Her real problem was depression and loneliness; and an addiction to both tobacco and poker machines?
In Scotland some years ago another Widow succumbed to then untreatable cancer. She was treated with heroin, which gave her complete pain relief. Something that can't happen here; given an asinine predilection by obtuse politicians, for banning things; clearly remaining the most effective pain relief currently in the locker.
She was given less than twelve months, but lived on for well over three years. In that time, she reunited with her estranged family.
Due to the efficacy of the pain relief, was reasonably active and reportedly enjoying life.
Her choice of how to spend the remaining time, was to enjoy the it, as opposed to wallowing in time wasting self pity.
People who want to top themselves, have multiple choices, that don't necessarily include others or outside assistance. What is missing in this debate, is hope?
Hope, which the circle thinking killjoys, go to considerable lengths to kill?
Incidentally, and entirely off topic, although straight, I'm an a somewhat outspoken advocate of Gay marriage and an inherent right to seek happiness, regardless of the "circumstances of birth", or who you are! Rhrosty.

What a specious argument! Again, you are inadvertently arguing FOR VE/PAS legislation not AGAINST. VE is not legal at the Gold Coast, therefore not subject to the strict regulations and checks imposed in countries like The Netherlands or jurisdictions like Oregon. We are asking for MORE supervision and accountability, not less.

THIS is what happens when people like Paul Russell get their way, NOT as a result of VE being legalised.

*People who want to top themselves, have multiple choices, that don't necessarily include others or outside assistance.*

Your kind of thinking is exactly the problem, Rhrosty.

Many people through no fault of their own, land up in circumstances
where they don't have choices anymore, as was the well known case
of Mr Rossiter and others like him. The man could not move a
muscle. The State gave him one choice, starvation if he chose it.

What drives many is fear of a similar ending and doing all within
their power to make sure that people like you, the Govt and the
Church, cannot deny them the choice which you insist on denying them
and which you claim that they have, when the evidence shows that
they clearly don't.

"People who want to top themselves, have multiple choices, that don't necessarily include others or outside assistance."

I suspect most don't have (or know of) a lot of options that don't include others, especially if you want it to be certain. Leaving aside the issue of physical capability for the moment which complicates the issue even further.

A drug overdose of some kind using a lot of the drugs commonly available has the risk of the body rejecting the medications or of discovery and intervention. Especially if the person wanting to end their own life tries to ensure that a loved one isn't the person to discover their body.

A more certain end might be gained by violent means, access to a firearm is not necessarily easy for someone who does not want to mix it with the underworld. That still leaves a messy cleanup for someone as does a high speed car crash and most other methods that are likely to work and be relatively quick. Most of those means also have some risk of not working outright and leading to even more suffering.

There may be multiple choices but few are certain, readily available and free of the need for others to deal with the aftermath.

R0ber

@RHrosty. "Recently, a Gold Coast Widow took her own life via assisted suicide. She had recently been treated for cancer. She developed adhesions, which she interpreted as the return of cancer?"

Legalised euthanasia would probably have saved this woman. If she knew that she had an "out" through medically assisted suicide, she would have sought medical attention which would have lead to the tests and discovery of treatable adhesions.

Guidelines and legislation, such as was once in the NT, and is in the Netherlands and Belgium is what will protect 'the vulnerable'. The 'vulnerable' have NO protection as it stands now in Australia.

I shudder to think out of which Cornflake box Paul Russell's lawyer friend got his degree. There is no box to tick re 'resuscitation' when undergoing any kind of procedure or operation in any hospital.

The irony of course, is that 'passive euthanasia' is the only kind that is 'allowed' here in Australia. So starving to death, dying of thirst, drowning in your own fluids by refusing medication, and indeed, stating Not For Resuscitation are in fact your only options.

As Chrys pointed out, once you give people back their power, very, very few in fact choose to hasten their death. The time left can be spent Living, rather than being depressed and scared.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument against legislated voluntary euthanasia.

Well said, Chrys. Those who trot out this tired old bogey of 'vulnerability' ignore (deliberately?)the possibility of legislative safeguards to prevent abuse, such as the many hurdles set out in the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, which in effect set up a very public and thorough procedure to evidence the person's free will. They also ignore the evidence you cite of the low level of use of the right to physician-assisted suicide. They 'forget' that there is always the possibility of abuse in permitting any social activity, (e.g. parenting, gambling) and that the benefits of permitting action are weighed against the possible (I emphasise possible) harm.
Finally, they ignore the various jurisdictions where regulated physician-assisted suicide is permitted, without any evidence of widespread abuse.
It is a sad indictment on our society that a court could agree that in a particular case the suffering of the person seeking assisted suicide was so severe, and her wish to die fully competent, as to warrant morally that she be allowed such assistance, but that, too bad, someone might in the future abuse such a right if the court were to set a precedent to be followed by others in similar circumstances. This occurred in the European Court of Human Rights case of Diane Pretty. She was forced to live and die in a state, the court acknowledged, full of unbearable fear, humiliation, and agony. I hope Ms Pretty appreciated the reasoning.