The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Voluntary euthanasia alection ads banned > Comments

Voluntary euthanasia alection ads banned : Comments

By Fiona Patten, published 4/9/2013

Why would CAD wait until almost the last week of the election to tell a party that their ads could not go to air?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
A further example of the erosion of freedom of speech in Australia.
As reported briefly yesterday on ABC radio, channel 9 has refused to broadcast an advert sponsored by Get Up showing a man picking up dog s%&t with a News Corp newspaper and challenging people not to be fooled by the News Corp propaganda. Personally I thought the advert was an important message on a subject that needs to be considered by everyone voting on Saturday and funny.
After the advert had been shown during prime time Channel 9 had decided in was in poor taste.
I wonder if it was political or corporate pressure that made Channel 9 change from happily taking the money and broadcasting, to thinking it was in poor taste.
In the case of The Sex Party advert on another subject of importance, I am again left wondering what outside interference has been brought to bear on CAD to change the ruling at such a time as to render the advert useless, as someone who has had to seek rulings from Government departments in the past, unless you have a lot of time and money, once a ruling has been made, getting that ruling changed is nigh on impossible.
The Minor Parties are posing a big threat to upsetting the outdated and corrupt 2 party system at this election and I wish you all good luck and keep fighting for what you believe in
Posted by Phil R, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 9:36:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I for one agree with the ban.
I don't believe voluntary euthanasia is a good cure for aged depression.
Or indeed, the effects of aging.
Or indeed, the cost of aging.
Or indeed, the inconvenience of aging!
Let's not forget, this is suicide, and currently unsanctioned.
Therefore, its promotion, however seemingly ethical, may well be illegal!
In any event, we ought to be exercising our brains on how to improve the quality of aging, rather than obsessing over, trying to end it prematurely!
When perhaps the quality of life could be restored with HRT, genetic modification.
Trials in mice and or rats, have confirmed some very positive, quality of older life outcomes.
And no, I don't want to extend my life beyond my allotted time, just the quality of that existence while I'm here.
Imagine being able to remain thin and energetic as a natural condition, right to the end.
Imagine no arthritis or rheumatics, or being able to compete in some sporting activity, right up until the day before you die.
Imagine, no memory loss, and being able to remain intellectually alert, right up to the end!
Imagine being able to end your days in your own home, as a completely independent individual, not needing to ever impose on neighbors for help with relatively minor activities!
This is where we ought to be focusing our energy, enthusiasm and surplus finances, rather than throwing our hands up; and or, trying to move people on, before their due date or proper time.
What happens if billions of believers the world over, and reincarnation is correct, that we can't escape our due destiny?
And all we achieve is simply having to come back and do the whole lesson or penalty over?
Have you ever looked at a baby and noted mannerisms that seemed very familiar, and remarked to yourself, that's odd, he/she reminds me of old whatshisname!
Not for nothing is it writ large, so as you sow, so also shall you reap!
Our destiny, or indeed, cause and effect, is not something we can ever avoid or escape from!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 11:22:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty what a load of garbage you write, I for one do not want you to be advising me on how I should end my life, that is my decision and mine alone not yours. 82% of people want VE, if you don't that Is your decision, one only hopes that when you go you will only be too happy to have people perhaps wiping your anus of blood and excrement that you have no control over, vomiting faeces, lumps appearing all over your body, extreme unbearable pain, good luck to you,but not for me.
VE is an option only and should be advertised as much as possible during election time by the various parties as part of their policy and should not be banned.
GetUp is having the same problem by criticising the Murdoch press, the adds being banned
You obviously agree with the war machine, in your mind perhaps that is not killing as sadistic Presidents etc think it is ok to exterminate.
We are having too much banning of free speech, thank goodness for the Internet where we can get various views and not by the likes of One eyed Murdoch
Posted by Ojnab, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 2:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how HRT, genetic modification and reincarnation constitute an effective counter-argument to VOLUNTARY euthanasia.
Having watch the ad in question, I think CAD overstepped their brief when they canned it, especially as they waited to the 11th hour before acting.
Is the Voluntary Euthanasia Party itself illegal?
What is it about this idea, and the public expression of it by up to 80% of elderly Australians, that those in power find so confronting?
Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 3:54:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How ridiculous this banning is. Especially at the last minute. BUT on the good side, it has created a lot of publicity re: the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. This is so much needed. I'm a staunch advocate of the right to self-determination. Those who argue against it (slippery slope, abuse of the elderly etc) are simply misinformed.

Good luck for the elections!
Posted by Ann from Picton, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 4:04:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fiona, just because a statement has a question mark on the end doesn't make it a question. You are merely stating a fact, based on Australian law, & that is what you are questioning.
Phil R. I'd say freedom of speech is being threatened when we in Australia are called "discrimination" against for refusing to advertise things we think are in bad taste (yes besides our media having to remain politically correct all the time, so not being allowed to report all our news to us). Thus who is being discriminated against? Is it minority groups pleading for all sorts of change while calling it equality, or is it our people (media included who feel they aren't allowed now to say no to the changes)? If because of an expectation for Australians to be politically correct & not have choice, & because of pressure on Oz to be more & more tolerant (& media geared to tell us again & again we aren't tolerant enough) euthanasia is legalized, grandparents may privately feel pressure to do so to help young family members financially. Someone privately already making someones life miserable mightn't feel reason to show mercy at all or share accountability for someone's state. & doctors may legally then not only have to suggest it, but will aid people to do it, This does concern us all, considering there are still slip ups with meds from time to time. To prevent mishaps caused by euthanasia legalization, what would you have us Do, write a stack high of More laws? Med Data Excise Tax RFID ourselves ..for YOUR FREEDOM? Another group who don't realize they're trouble are those who'd like the legalization of same-sex marriage. This might matter to clothes boutiques owners who won't be allowed to refuse to sell crossdress atire & display on transvestite manequins. & schools who refuse to add same-sex relations into their sex education courses. Then, we just may see freedom of religion & what we're allowed to think or who we'd employ threatened, as law is law & is means for more.
Posted by CrazyLaClubOfMinds, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 4:08:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see all the arguments both for & against voluntary euthanasia, but can not see any acceptable argument for banning the promotion or the advertising of it. We are supposed to be adults, capable of making our own decisions, & I will not be dictated to by anyone on these things.

I want the option for me. I really enjoy my life, it is painful at times, but so what. I do become terrified as my pain builds, that I might leave the final act of pain relief too late. Too late for me to take the necessary action for my self, & become dependent on another for help.

This is not only transferring the burden to someone else, but asking them to become open to drastic punishment, just to help.

If the process of legal assisted voluntary euthanasia is available, staffed by professionals, there is much less likelihood of damage to others, & I am relieved of the necessity of going even a little before I wish, to avoid involving family.

Surely not too much to ask?
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 4:38:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I saw the GetUp! ad when the funding campaign was being launched - in fact I donated to it. However, I was concerned that the dog excrement aspect would be off-putting to a lot of people (it made me retch) and that it might be used as an excuse to pull the ad.

Unfortunately, when you're trying to reach a broad audience, you need to keep your method fairly conservative.

As for the VE issue and censorship ... Only one book has been banned in Australia in the last 37 years, and that's the Peaceful Pill Handbook, published by Exit International.

Yet, either due to ignorance or disinterest, there is no outcry. Contrast this with how, whenever authorities interfere in any way with the distribution of a movie, book or other cultural medium that contains 'poor taste' pornographic, sexual or violent content, all hell breaks loose.

Just another example of the many hypocrisies inherent in the censorship debate.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 7:43:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty there is a big difference between not agreeing with the policy and banning political advertising that states that policy.

A ban on political adds featuring simplified statements of policies which some disagreed with leave us just with the negative adds free of policy (the ones I'd rather see gone).

Feel free to fight against voluntary euthanasia but be very nervous when a political party can't run adds that provide a statement of key policies regardless of how you feel about those policies.

If you have not already done so follow the link in the article and look at the add, disagree if you like but tell me what part of the add you find so bothersome that a party should not be allowed to tell the public is part of their platform.

The judgement and handling of the issue are both if as reported very poor.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 8:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some folks are missing the point! Maybe intentionally?

It's not about "Euthanasia" rather the bogus censorship of an ad for a political party which supports the concept of legalized voluntary euthanasia.

I agree with Ms Patten - it stinks! Her Party has every right to promote their policy. There is nothing new or controversial about it nor is it encouraging illegal behaviour. Voluntary euthanasia has been on the agenda for many years. Every viewer or reader has the freedom, and presumably, intelligence to make a decision as to whether the policies of Ms Patten's organisation are worth their vote.

I hope it backfires on the manipulators who are obviously seeking to interfere with the democratic process under the shambolic cloak of censorship.
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 4 September 2013 9:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arguments for/against euthanasia are logically irrelevant in this case. The Sex Party has not broken the electoral law, and the adverts should then be allowed, whatever particular attitudes people may have. The alternative is to suggest that adverts in favor of something 'I' disapprove of should be disallowed, and that opens up a nasty can of worms regarding freedom of speech, and could, if legislated, have consequences which those supporting the ban on the Sex Party ad may come to regret.
Tonyo
Posted by tonyo, Thursday, 5 September 2013 5:58:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'd say freedom of speech is being threatened when we in Australia are called "discrimination" against for refusing to advertise things we think are in bad taste"

That's completely illogical, you only need to protect "free speech" for speech that is critical or controversial. You don't need to protect speech for all the stuff that doesn't upset anyone, because it doesn't upset anyone. I would like to ban all speech by any religion but I respect their right to peddle their filth to all 'n sundry.

To the Author, I voted for you guys in the Senate last time and will again this time. It was either you, the Pirate Party or Wiki.

As to the house of Reps, ALP last, LNP second last and Greens third last and so on up the order.

On Euthanasia itself, there was an interesting AMA on Reddit with a guy who had end stage cancer, where he covered it nicely when queried,; the choice should always reside with the individual, never with medical staff or worse still, the legislature. His AMA (Ask Me Anything) is here

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1l6l38/iama_41_m_with_renal_cell_carcinoma_ive_lost_a/
Posted by Valley Guy, Thursday, 5 September 2013 8:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CAD has previously approved and later withdrawn approval of TV ads that contained the words voluntary euthanasia or die with dignity. One wonders if it is a deliberate tactic by religious zealots who will do whatever they can to block public or political debate about voluntary euthanasia.
Medical assistance to die is currently lawful in seven western democracies around the world today. If they can do it without society falling apart so can we.

You can see one of the banned ads at YLR.com
Posted by Marshall Perron, Tuesday, 10 September 2013 9:27:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy