How dare you say what I can do with my own life. If I want to end it, then that's my privilege. You don't own me. If I think, and medical experts agree I am rational, then that's all I need to make that decision. I don't want any devout busy-body guiding my existence on this planet. You really make me angry.

What nonsense it is to claim that this, and I quote, "macabre and clandestine industry" has not been subjected to intense public scrutiny from the get-go. It has received little but intense and public scrutiny.
And how about the attempted slide around the central reason for voluntarily ending one's life by referring to a "difficult prognosis"? Would that be a reference to a lingering and inevitable death without hope of remission but with a promise of great indignity and pain?
And once again we come to the central argument of this debate, or central to my way of thinking at any rate: It is not those who are in favour of voluntary euthanasia who are trying to tell others how to live and ultimately end their life; it is, rather, those who are against this idea whose time has surely come who are.

That is the problem with all these god botherers. All they can offer is hope, hope that things will be better in the future, when realistically things can only get worse. Even their funeral services are only able to offer "sure and certain hope" of a better life in the hereafter. We should leave them to their own delusions.

No one is advocating compulsory suicide. That is just a straw man argument put up by those opposed to it. How I end my life should be my choice. I have recently sat by while a loved one slowly died, fortunately well sedated by expert palliative care nurses, but for those without the availability of that sort of care, suicide would be a very real choice.

David

I have no problem with people who want to commit suicide. For medical reasons it brings a dignified end instead of lingering pain.

For others it cleanses the Gene Pool. Those people have no coping mechanism to deal with the realities of life. They are a drag on their friends & Society. It's sad for their family, however for those people & family, friends & Society suicide is a blessing in disguise.

Of course people who are depressed should be able to get help. Anyone who has any problem should be able to get help from someone in a civilized society.
But how can anyone claim the right to force someone to live against their will?
My body is my own. No one has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with it. I certainly would never suggest I have any right to dictate to others what they can and can't do with theirs.
Where the hell do you get off making life and death decisions for other people.
Who elected you God?
You need to learn to Mind Your Own Business Mr Russell.

Neither living nor dying is rational.

There is always hope? Nonsense.

The demand that every action be completely rational if satisfied would act to contain the population explosion as it would prevent most marriage & most sexual relations. Bug off, Russell! Don't interfere with my decision to do what I want with my life.

"But there is always hope; there is always some other solution."

No, there isn't. About ten years ago I developed depression and paranoia as a result of an untreated thyroid condition. Luckily it was diagnosed and can be treated by a couple of tablets per day. Had I been unlucky enough to have the same condition in, say, 1800, then no amount of "time, good counselling, talking to family and friends, taking exercise and a good night's rest" could have helped me in any way, and to pretend they could would have been fatuous and cruel. My life would have been utterly unbearable and I would probably have ended it.

There are people today in a parallel situation. No doubt there is a reason for their misery. No doubt one day we will be able to determine that reason and treat it as easily as an underactive thyroid. But until then it's only fair and humane to allow them to decide for themselves whether their lives are worth living; regardless of the grief it may cause their friends and relatives, or the offence taken by those who believe that homicide should be the special privilege of their Invisible Friend.

The author really hasn't presented any argument against the idea that suicide can be a rational decision. Without the delusion of religion, rational, healthy people can reach their own conclusions as to whether or not continued existence is justified. Our pagan ancestors usually regarded suicide as a personal choice, then, with the appearance of Christianity it became society's business.

I agree with most of the previous comments, believers should mind their own business, unfortunately they usually don't.

LOL When I first read the title of this thread "the exit death industry" I thought it was about cryonics : http://tinyurl.com/ljhffd6

(it would have made for a much more interesting discussion)

SPQR,

Cryonic 'preservation' is probably about as much use as mummification, although it's a nice little earner for the cryonics companies.

Mac,

I wonder who will get the last laugh?

When you and I (though I am still considering my options!) are but dust blowing in the wind some of those frozen mummies might have been reawakened and physically and mentally enhanced.

I mean, when you think about it what have you got to lose? On the one hand you have certain death (and whatever that entails) and on the other a chance, however small, that you might reap immortality.

A la Pascal <<“even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make the bet worthwhile>>

My thinking is that sooner or later we will get there – just so long as the Lefties don’t undercut the advancement of science.

Dear SPQR,

Everything which exists is temporary. Had God existed, then He too would be mortal.

It is possible (though expensive) that you may realise your wish to resume living in your current body, but that too would be temporary. Eventually, this whole universe will be gone, either collapsing in a big crunch, or dispersing indefinitely with no sub-atomic particles left intact.

Personally, I see this world changing so much during my own natural life, that I have no wish to awake again to a world so totally different. Recognising none of my former family and friends, with every way of life so strange beyond my imagination, what would I do there?

Your best bet, as Pascal would say, is to look for your happiness elsewhere than this physical universe.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no evidence for anything existing other than this physical universe. If we don't find happiness in this physical universe we don't find happiness.

I wish you happiness.

Yuyutsu,

<<Everything which exists is temporary...>>
How did you decide that? all your experiences (gleaned through your limited senses) up to now have informed you that, that is the way of the world. But that hardly makes it conclusive.

<<Eventually, this whole universe will be gone, either collapsing in a big crunch...>>
Again, how did you determine that? That might be the best guesstimate of our leading brains today --but again, that doesn't make it conclusive.

The best brains we had 200 years ago would have given a different scenario. And quantum physics is pushing us towards some strange ways of (re)viewing "reality".

There is no "hope" which effectively deals with the overwhelming fact that Death really does rule to here.

You do not go to "heaven" when you die. In fact you inevitably get reborn again into essentially the same dazed and confused circumstance in which you have lived in this life-time.

Nor are you relieved from the necessity of having to deal with and understand what death requires of each and every single one of us while we are alive, by believing any of the usual Disneyland fantasy nonsense that one has been "saved" by the blood sacrifice and "resurrection" of "Jesus" (whenever and wherever that was in all the space-time paradoxes of an Indivisible quantum universe).
Nor will you be "bodily resurrected" when "Jesus" comes again - which of course will never ever happen. When and where in the Indivisible quantum universe could that possibly occur?
And what would your "resurrected" body look like - when you were in the prime of your life at 30, or as it was/is the moment before the dying Process begins (on your death bed)? What if your body was vaporized or smithereened by an explosion or bomb?

Most peoples lives become more and more wretched as they grow old, especially in the last months/weeks/days of their lives.
And most people essentially get brutalized by the system in their days. This is what happened to both my mother and father, especially my mother. Even if only by the sheer lack of Wisdom about death as a Living Process that mis-informs our "culture" at large, even amongst the usual god-botherers.

Unfortunately very few people have ready access to the necessary human and financial resources to be assisted to consciously participate in the Process of conscious dying. Such a process necessarily requires the participation of numbers of other human beings informed by the necessary Wisdom in serving the dying Process, and in most cases the financial resources to be able to afford such a compassionate circumstance.

Without access to the necessary Wisdom, and resources most people end up being more or less brutalized by the system.

The author wrote:

"The intuitive assessment that suicide should be shunned and is never the only option is natural, normal and something hardwired into humanity."

It is not hardwired into humanity. It is not common in Japanese society. It is an accepted response to great loss of face. Japanese are as human as we are but do not have the same attitude to suicide that Paul Russell has. Opinionated people may feel that their opinion is right and natural and the way all reasonable people should feel. Mr. Russell is making his individual opinion universal.

Another example of the same sort.

"When we think of suicide we commonly understand that people who contemplate ending their lives will be viewing their problems through a very dark lens that does not, at that time, offer them any hope or possibility that what troubles them could be dealt with in a less dramatic fashion."

Here Mr. Russell uses the 'we' which should be reserved for monarchs, editors and people with tapeworms. Commonly? Your opinion is your opinion, Mr. Russell. You are not speaking for society or even the majority. A person in agony from a debilitating terminal disease which is not susceptible to palliative care does not have any realistic hope. A person who feels their continued existence would probably mean more suffering even though they are not terminally ill has a right to end their life. Death is the end for all of us, and we should have the right to hasten it.

I visited my Aunt Rae in the hospital where she was connected to various machines that were keeping her alive. She could not speak but rolled her eyes to the plug that she wanted pulled. I was not willing to accept the penalty of assisting her departure so did not pull the plug. In risking the penalty for assisting a suffering person to end it Philip Nitschke is a better man than I am. He is willing to take the risk that I was unwilling to take. I think he is also a better man than Mr. Russell.

Dear David F.,

<<There is no evidence for anything existing other than this physical universe.>>

That's just restating a definition: if something has an evidence, then by definition it is of this physical universe.

<<If we don't find happiness in this physical universe we don't find happiness.>>

As happiness in this physical universe is necessarily temporary, Pascal would urge you to try elsewhere.

Dear SPQR,

These are currently the best views of physical science: either crunch or dispersal. If anything, quantum physics suggests a world being reborn every moment, indicating that there is nothing solid about it, in other words that it is an illusion.

In any case, it is agreed, I believe, that physical conditions in some trillions of years will not resemble today's and a human body as we know it, even if somehow preserved, would be useless in that environment. If you wait long enough, then you will no longer find any human friends and most probably you would not even recognise the life forms around you as living, nor be able to communicate with them. In fact, it would be unlikely for your human senses to grasp your new environment at all. Why bother then, especially given that preserving your body will likely be a burden on coming generations?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Happiness must be temporary. If we did not know sorrow we would not know happiness. We recognise happiness because it contrasts with other emotions. Eternal happiness is impossible because we must have the contrast which would not exist if happiness were eternal.

You are correct. Of course if there is evidence for its existence it must be part of the physical universe. There can be no evidence for anything outside the physical universe.

I'm in a position to converse with people quite frequently about the pros and cons of capital punishment -for the real hard cases, like Martin Bryant, Ivan Milat, Robert Long... The consensus has always been overwhelmingly in favour.
I've always spoken against capital punishment, largely because I haven't encountered -or heard of- any politicians that I would like to entrust that much power to.
If killing others is wrong, then it should always be wrong.
I don't however have any moral objection to criminals who have been given life sentences having the right to commit suicide. Not only would such a course be more humane (they shoot horses, don't they?) it would also save the prison system a lot of money.
Put a noose and a trap door in every cell on Death Row.

yutsie: probably you would not even recognise the life forms around you as living, nor be able to communicate with them.

Ah Ha! So.... That's where Ghosts come from. ;-)

Dear David,

You are rightly stating that happiness would not be recognised without sorrow.

The question is what's more important: to recognise happiness - or to be happy?

If you are happy because of something external, then when that something is gone you will become unhappy. If however you are happy just being who you are (which is God, but lets not get into this now), then nothing can break your happiness because you can never be anything but yourself.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "If however you are happy just being who you are (which is God, but lets not get into this now), then nothing can break your happiness because you can never be anything but yourself."

If you don't want to get into nonsense why refer to it? I have no illusions of there being a God or me being that imaginary entity.

"If you don't want to get into nonsense why refer to it? I have no illusions of there being a God or me being that imaginary entity."

Not your illusions, david f, but Yuyutsu's allusions are that you are...

As the great Gloria Gaynor sang, "I am what I am. I am my own special creation." Interestingly, given the article, she is also famous for "Never can say goodbye" and "I will survive."

“... nothing can break your happiness because you can never be anything but yourself.”
Funny, I always thought the truly defining characteristic of Humans -as compared to other animals- was the ability to empathise; to become, if only for a moment, someone else.
Surely the real cure of depression involves becoming a happier person?
Of course there are critters walking around on 2 legs who are demonstrably incapable of empathy.
In fact, there are many who don't seem to be able to even grasp the concept... They can generally be identified by their dogmatic statements: I KNOW, rather than I think.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” Bertrand Russell.

Dear David,

<<I have no illusions of there being a God or me being that imaginary entity.>>

Thank heaven for that - because God is not an entity, nor are you.

So long as you are happy with what and who you are, I have no problem - If you have difficulties with the name 'God' (perhaps due to its Abrahamic connotations), then who cares what name(s) you use to call yourself instead?

Sadly, most people believe that they are their body, which makes them suffer with it.

Dear Grim,

Humans cannot empathise, or be happy or sad. We can use the human body to feel all that, but if there is nobody home in that body, then it is just an unconscious biological machine.

Nobody can become a happier person because nobody can become a person. Persons are necessarily subject to ups and downs. If you seek to be happy permanently and unconditionally, you must break the illusion of being a person.

Yep. Thanks for proving Bertrand right.

SPQR,

I've never been convinced by the concept of Pascal's Wager since I really can't make myself believe that there's any evidence for the supernatural, in other words, I couldn't fool God.

I agree with you on taking the chance on cryogenics, however it seems very long odds to me. There's (1) no evidence that the process doesn't cause irreversible damage to brain cells (2) the ..'patients' are relying on the ability of the cryonic companies to stay in business, some have gone bankrupt.

As to lefties and science, have you forgotten our current conservative government doesn't even have a science minister.

Mac,

<<As to lefties and science, have you forgotten our current conservative government doesn't even have a science minister.>>

Superfically a good point --but only superfically so. I am convinced that most of those --outside of the scientists-- who support climate change science/mitigation only do so as a means to world govt. And they seek redistrubvtion of land/weath as part of that program --meaning Ali and his 20 kids in Yemen will get first --and probalbly full call -- over funding rather than cryogenics or Mars missions. As it is , one of the growing campaigns in Lefty circles is that the money spent on researching old white peoples illnesses ought to redirected towards saving the undeveloped worlds babies.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The idea that the human body is a unconscious biological machine and the mind is something else is called dualism. There is no evidence for the mind not being a function of the body. Dualism is another item of human superstition, The mind does not survive the death of the body.

RE: the freezing of the body to obtain immortality.

Immortality, is given to us in the only
form currently "known" in the Human knowledge base.

It's called reproduction. Whereby the aging human cells
reproduce themselves in the form of new offspring.

This is not enough for the introspective human being
who wishes not to die at all.

And yet, everyday the Universe demonstrates before our
very eyes the urgency it places on the cycle of life and the
newly born, grown, etc. as the only way to keep the universe
ongoing.

Proof of the only immortality, writ large. Man of course makes
up stories he likes better, usually that don't contain proof of
his own demise.

No matter what delusions man invents, nature will eventually override
those delusions and have it's way.

Back to Dr Nitschke and the idea of rational suicide,

I think there are certainly cases of irrational suicide
But there are also just as many cases of rational suicide.
It is not a case of one or the other but both.

The the man in his 40's who committed suicide
had one of the most rational reasons for committing
suicide I've heard.

Possibly,three murdered women to his credit, and
the police on the verge of arresting him to spend
perhaps a life-time in prison.

Could the doctors and Beyond-Blue,please tell
me how the murder of 3women could possibly be turned
into a hopeful concept in this man's conscience if that
is why he has suicided. Is it
not perfectly rational for him to see the stark reality of
his life and not want to live it anymore.

He has in fact probably done the women he perhaps
murdered an act of atonement and saved the taxpayers
millions of dollars keeping him in prison for the next
20years. I think in this case it is indeed a case
of rational suicide.

It is at the very least, by him forfeiting his life
justice for his victims, whose lives he perhaps forfeited

Dear David,

<<The mind does not survive the death of the body.>>

Quite possible indeed and in that case, once you die you also lose your mind as well as your body.

But what has this got to do with YOU?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Quite simply it means my mind is part of my body. I am not a machine with a separate mind. The mind is part of the machine.

Humanity is a species with two life forms a single celled and a multicelled form which alternate generations.The multicelled form has a 100% mortality. The single celled forms have a very high mortality, but some of them unite with another single celled form to form a multicelled form which will in turn produce single celled forms. The single forms have similar complexity of mind to other single celled forms such as bacteria or protozoans.

There are two kinds of single celled forms. One admits the other kind of simple celled form to unite with it and grow into another multicelled form. The other kind of single celled form is more active and will swim up a channel to unite. There are two main kinds of multicelled forms with many variations. The most common variations of multicelled forms are called male and female. Their coming together is called sexual intercourse. However, much of the literature, art and poetry of human society is based on the various social rituals and mindsets preceding the act itself. The association of the two main forms can continue after the act. The continued association may include repetitions of the act.

Dear David,

This is all so, but what has this unexpected lesson in biology to do with our former conversation or with the topic at hand?

Dear Yuyutsu,

We are all of a piece. We are like the other animals in our biology. Our body is not a separate entity from our mind.

It seems you are unaware of these elementary facts.

I was still responding to your statement:

"Thank heaven for that - because God is not an entity, nor are you."

An entity is something that exists in itself, actually or hypothetically. It need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate.

Therefore, both God, a creation of human imagination, and I are entities. Apparently you have your own idiosyncratic definition of entity as you have your own idiosyncratic definition of religion,

Dear David,

Your body and your mind are entities, perhaps one entity perhaps not, it doesn't matter much.

Perhaps these are two separate garments, perhaps just one. The body allows you to walk and talk, the mind allows you to think, but both constantly change, or perhaps it is only just one body-mind which constantly changes and eventually wears out: what's all that to do with you?

What all that has to do with me is that my body is me.

Dear David,

It is very sad that you do not know yourself.

Since your body was born, every single atom was replaced therein.
Are you then someone else than who you were when you had a baby's body?

I am fed up with the arrogance of meddling Christians, Paul Russel it is none of your dam business what I do with my body. Why don't you stop wasting your time put your energy into helping people who might benefit from it.

Why is this issue so distorted by some of the above writers ?

Suicide is one thing. Assisting, or persuading, people to kill themselves is quite another. Murder is another.

Surely tighter boundaries can be put around what is legal, suicide, in that people can kill themselves without the involvement of any other person ?

And why are opponents to assisted killing written off as Christians ? Surely if one believes in an afterlife, one is more likely to write this one off ? There's another waiting, so why worry ?

As an atheist, I believe that we have one life, one precious span of time, to make contributions to humanity - and then we're gone. Forever. I'm puzzled how and why sections of the pseudo-Left have degenerated into a death cult.

Yes, I've lost loved ones, and many, many acquaintances. Knock around the Indigenous scene and you can't avoid it. So many precious people whose one-and-only lives were cut short. Gone. Forever. They have left this beautiful, troubled planet and they will never be seen or heard or hugged or laughed with ever again. The End.

So the notion of counselling people who are depressed, or not in pain, or in imminent danger of dying (i.e. The End), to top themselves is grotesque, abhorrent and against humanity.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"Surely if one believes in an afterlife, one is more likely to write this one off"

No, traditionally suicide is a sin, since human lives care God's gift, there are, of course, many theological interpretations, take your pick, so the assumption that believers in an afterlife necessarily accept the practice of suicide is incorrect.

"So the notion of counselling people who are depressed, or not in pain, or in imminent danger of dying (i.e. The End), to top themselves is grotesque, abhorrent and against humanity."

Agreed, however, it's conceivable that a rational person could arrive at a decision to commit suicide.

s/b --'human lives are God's gift'

Maqc,

I'm suggesting that suicide shouldn't be either a crime OR a 'sin', but that its definition, i.e. that absolutely nobody else is involved, should be very carefully monitored.

'Assisted suicide' in that sense is something of an oxymoron.

Joe

If Christians choose to believe lame assertions like "human lives are gods gift" that is fine just don't try and force your childish views onto others.

Actually, I 've had second thoughts about the theme of this Post. Should there be an investigation into the exit death industry.

Maybe there should be an investigation. I can only see something positive coming out of the outcome of such an investigation. The Doctors would come on board if there was something in it for them. As it is now they are not making anything out if it. Doctors have the option now of non intervention if you have signed the waver slip, as I have. They just fill you full of Morphine until you die, it hastens the end anyway.

to ALL –

first I wish to praise the author here but he should have been more harsh.

second I wish to note the common responses on this thread are indicative of the whole issue and those who think like this are the reason why “suicide” as a criminal offense under our law was abrogated some decades ago.

People who think that to have systems of caution and checks in place so that not just any person sick or just depressed cannot not have open access to easy kill yourself kits is somehow against their personal liberty . . . is ridiculous and very selfish.

Don’t those people care about the poor souls with mental illness or depression who may kill themselves IF suicide info were so openly and readily available?

Another major problem because of these no doubt self-appointed liberty champions [but is it Libertarianism or Rawlsian Liberalism?] is that they mostly talk about euthanasia yet most suicides are not from rational choices to opt out of physical illness, most are mentally disordered and vulnerable people.

Selfish to the end.

What the Phillip Nitscheites need is for someone thy care about who is physically ill to suicide via the info they want open to all.

Yes Mathew and why are they vulnerable because Abbott has taken away their means of support. He tells us in one breath that we have to take responsibility for ourselves then his religious dogma steps in and shows him as the hypocrite we know so well and he says but I'm not going to let you have money for food or medicine. Die slowly and suffer that's what the Christian meddlers want.

Matthew S: Don’t those people care about the poor souls with mental illness or depression who may kill themselves IF suicide info were so openly and readily available?

No.

"Those" people are doing the world a good turn by committing suicide. It removes unfit Genes from the Gene Pool. It's Natures way of "Survival of the Fittest."

Calm down old son. I noticed you were quite agitated when you wrote that. No one can make a rational decision in an agitated state.

Hi Helga,

It's got bugger-all to do with religion - there are plenty of atheists out here who have grave misgivings about assisting someone to kill themselves. Suicide - fine, assisted death - no.

People in the final stages, say the last few hours, of a mortal illness should, if they ask for it, be provided with some means to help them sleep or relieve severe pain, but only with disinterested medical and palliative care personnel, and only if thoroughly monitored and going by the proper protocols.

But please move on from the 'only Christians yada yada' line.

Joe

Suicide is, more often than not, a sin - because it is usually done with a selfish motive.
Assisting another to die is, more often than not, not a sin - because it is usually an unselfish act of kindness.

Go figure why a secular government punishes that which is not a sin rather than that which is a sin!

Of course, a secular body can have no idea about sin and no means whatsoever to distinguish between good and evil - so it should stay out of the way!

Whoever needs punishment will meet it in the pearly-gates, so to speak, but not by a human-monkey court.

Loudmouth it has everything to do with religion and control, control of course is the only reason religions exist. The church has been firmly against suicide not because they could care less about the people but because individuals will take control of thier own mortality something the church sees as a major threat to its domination. If you don't understand that about religion you really are a bit naive.

If you have any doubts about this the people of the NT voted in favor of euthanasia but who stepped in to stamp all over our democratic will the Catholic dominated Howard/Abbott government.

Hi Helga,

Yes, there's overlap, but I'm an atheist and I oppose assisted death. Suicide yes, providing terminally-ill people with morphine pumps, yes, but not assisting or counselling someone to top themselves. If you don't understand how people can get chronically depressed, enough to contemplate suicide, then you are indeed naïve.

Joe

Dear Helga,

It is true that religion has much to do with self-control, but it has nothing to do with controlling others. Churches have a duty to guide people and teach them that suicide is a sin which would take them away from God - however, to the extent that churches exercise power to prevent those who refuse to follow its teachings from making their own choice and to the extent they are into domination, to that extent those churches are irreligious.

Yutsie: the extent that churches exercise power to prevent those who refuse to follow its teachings from making their own choice and to the extent they are into domination.

They don't? Better have a closer look at 7DA & JH's, Southern Baptists etc for a start mate. If you don't toe their particular line you get exorcised from your family & everybody you would normally associate with, then they come calling, giving you a hard time. No free choices allowed there, follow the Church Dogma, or else.

Dear Jayb,

<<They don't?>>

Some do, some more than others - and to that extent these are not religions. To that extent they are hypocrites that abuse the name of religion and the name of God, thus breaking the third commandment ("thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain"), to that extent they are more sinful than atheists, more sinful than those who disobey them, including those who commit suicide.

More sinful than atheists? It is not sinful to see the mumbojumbo for what it is. It might be sinful to follow the mumbojumbo,but not if you keep it to yourself & don't push it on others. Perhaps it is a sin to cloud your mind with crap.

It's unrealistic to expect believers to keep their religion to themselves as most religions, particularly Christianity and Islam are intensely proselytising faiths, the ultimate aim of the faithful is a totalitarian society, they're at war with the secular state.

Yuyu it is true I wont be going to heaven or meeting god and for the same reason my children wont be going to Hogwarts School.

Dear Mac,

The ultimate aim of the faithful is to unite with God.

Anyone who has other aims is by definition a sinner, because the direction of their life takes them off the mark.

I do wonder how truly faithful are those "Christians" and "Muslims" you refer to.
(more accurately, those who claim to follow Christ's example and those who claim to live at peace, for the word 'Islam' is derived from 'peace')

---

Dear David,

You raised an exciting topic: Is it sinful to believe in mumbojumbo and act on it?

My answer is that one cannot judge sinfulness by the contents of one's beliefs, but one must look instead into the believer's heart, asking WHY they believe such-and-such rather than WHAT.

---

Dear Helga,

Good on you that you won't be going to heaven - it's a very wasteful practice.

As for meeting God, indeed this is impossible because a meeting must be between two. Since there is nothing but God, there is no second for God to meet.

So how do some of you with a Bible fixation explain the opposition to euthanasia from atheists such as myself ?

One life, and - poof ! Gone. Never to return, by the way, in case you had some other idea. One and only one precious life, one opportunity to make a differ3ence and then that's it. Not even blackness - nothing. Bones and flesh, back into the cosmos for eternity.

Ah - I get it - you're all EX-believers ? Is that it ? Still can't shake loose from the bonds of infantile belief ?

Get over it and move on.

Joe

Loudmouth Even at the age of ten we knew it was a fairytale our scripture teacher had a breakdown because she just couldn't answer sensible questions about inconsistencies in the bible. As an atheist you can believe what you like. It is Christians who toe the line because they are too dim witted to think for themselves who need to be educated.

Helga, despite an education at a Christian school, I can't remember, from my early teens, ever being a believer, it was puzzling why intelligent people believed such nonsense. I've never heard, or read any convincing solution to the problem presented by theodicy.

Some people just don't have the "gene" for religion.

Mac congratulations on surviving a Christian education so many are so damaged by (particularly) Catholic education, of course the Abbott and Pyne appointed education inquisitor Kevin Donnelly will have compulsory scripture classes backed up with a damn good thrashing if your little children don't toe the line. What a good Christian Kevin Donnelly is.

I always passed my Religious Education 100%. In my final year, Junior or Grade 10 the Bishop gave me a Bursary & the usual book on Speech Night. He asked me if I thought of becoming a Priest or Brother. I told him then I didn't really believe in Religion on stage in front of the whole School Community. I got hurried off stage. Strange that.

I'm still very good at Religion, it's a hobby. I just love the JH when they show up at my door. I invite them in. Old Jim sends the newbie around to me to train them in what it like to get someone that knows more than they do. ;-) They get a bit of a shock when they quote me some verse & I tell them the verse before & after & what the Chapter is about. Then I show them that what they are try to say it means isn't exactly right.

I love the 7DA's & the Southern Baptists too. Great fun.

Helga,

I attended a Presbyterian grammar school, so religion was applied relatively lightly. In contrast to the Catholic system, I was bored rather than brainwashed.
My father was an atheist and anti-clerical and my mother had little interest in religion, my brother and I wouldn't have been sent to any school where we were in any danger of being turned into little Christian robots. My parents thought that educational standards were higher in private schools, like many parents these days.

Jayb good story, so they were trying to you recruit you in grade 10 doesn't surprise me when you see what they have been up to. My dad has some fum with Mormons he turned the tables and got out a publication he writes and tried to force it onto them, Mum and I watched from inside the house and had a good laugh.

I didn't like the Jehovahs witnesses coming around with their children though, I know for a fact they faced some pretty bad abuse from the people they woke up in the morning and I think they can't care much for their kids if they are prepared to expose them to that sort of abuse.

mac it seems your parents knew what they were doing I think it's sad that these days parents are sending their kids to supposedly secular schools were the kids are being proselytized by these government funded chaplains, wasn't one in WA recently convicted to 15 months for possessing child pornography?

I thought the topic had something to do with euthanasia, above and beyond any religious opposition to it. Is there any chance we can get back to topic ?

Can we differentiate between suicide, and 'assisted death', and what might well be manslaughter or murder in a court of law ? I certainly don't wish anybody to die, it's their one and only life after all, but if someone wishes to do so, after all possible measures are used to keep them living in this troubled world, then of course that has to be their decision. Theirs alone. Nobody else involved, since we are then lurching over into something very different.

Of course, if someone is in unrelievable pain, they may need the means to end the pain, even if it means the end of their one and only life. If someone is dying, and clearly is within a few hours of the End, then in a palliative care environment, I can understand that the need to relieve the pain may also hasten their end - AS LONG AS proper supervised protocols are observed. But anything else may well be verging on culpability, at least manslaughter.

And that is where Mr Nitschke's 'solutions' may be.

Joe

Dear Joe,

<<Can we differentiate between suicide, and 'assisted death', and what might well be manslaughter or murder in a court of law ?>>

No we can't, the law and its courts are hopelessly impotent. The law is also unable to deal with metaphysical questions, such as our disagreement about how many lives we get.

This is why I suggest a simple solution: that people be allowed to opt out of state protection. Anyone, at any time, should be able to formally instruct the state that they no longer authorise it to protect their lives. Of course there should be some procedure to ensure that those who opt out are informed of the consequences and do so freely without coercion. Once someone successfully opts out, killing them is no longer a criminal offence.

"exercise and a good night's rest" according to Paul Russel that's what you need and your troubles will be over and you will never be suicidal again.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"Once someone successfully opts out, killing them is no longer a criminal offence."

But that's never going to happen, is it ? No state surely is ever going to sanction such a course ?

Of course, if someone wants to kill themselves for other than medical near-death reasons, they can find ways to do it, without the involvement of any other person. The suspicion of another person's involvement raises the possibility of the culpability of that other person, i.e. manslaughter or even murder.

My question is - how do you draw the line between suicide and unlawful killing ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

I do not wish to draw any such line: all human laws are artificial, hence any line drawn would also be artificial.

Why for example is killing animals, in most circumstances legal?

It's only because currently state laws do not give the same protection to animals as they give to humans - it's totally arbitrary and artificial, following state interests instead of any moral guiding principles.

It is common to end the life of a suffering pet. An animal may not be able to tell us whether or not it is a victim, but humans can - and should!

Where I wish to draw the line is elsewhere, where it should be, where it is in line with logic and morality, instead of with state interests. I have outlined my proposal accordingly, which is more just: In my proposal I let the so-called "victim" decide for themselves, in advance whether indeed they are a victim. We may want to look at the fine details of its implementation, but whether it is accepted or not is beyond my powers.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I guess I'm thinking of those limited situations in which:

* people are not - not even good friends - pets, and

* people are not dying, or in unrelievable pain.

My point is that - outside of medical situations with strict protocols enforced - nobody has the right to contribute to the death of another. Nobody has the right to play (a mythical) God.

As Jeff Kennett has pointed out so many times, a person in depression is extremely vulnerable. There should be vastly more effective counselling services, particularly in rural and remote areas, and a far better understanding of the causes and remedies for depression in, say, Indigenous settlements, where suicide, usually of young people, disproportionately female, is twenty times higher than for Australia generally.

To blithely offer to help someone take their one-and-only life is obscene, and deservedly criminal.

Joe

Dear Joe,

As I wrote, some fine details may need to be looked at, such as the case of depressed and/or indigenous people - whether, when and how they can prove that they indeed provide their informed and free consent.

Also, we seem to disagree on the concept of 'life'. That's OK and this is probably not the place to enter that discussion. It is alright to disagree on metaphysical issues, but it is not alright for the state to decide and force its view in matters of faith.

Setting aside the details of whether the "disadvantaged" are entitled to choose for themselves whether they keep or shed their body, let us focus for now on "normal" citizens, let's assume white, male and sane.

Should one who is not ill or depressed declare in advance: "If I'm ever to become ill or depressed, I would like to be assisted in dying", surely nobody has a right to stop them.

Or should for example two people (white, male, sane...) rationally decide to have a duel where one of them (50-50 chance) is to be killed and the other is to have their lady (which perhaps offered herself to marry the winner), surely their wish shouldn't be criminalised (unless the state endorses and enforces certain metaphysical assumptions, which is well and truly beyond its jurisdiction).

Personally, I wouldn't do such stupid things and I have no wish to be killed, but I would still sign such a declaration for a totally different reason: If I die, I don't want my killer/murderer to be punished and jailed and I do not authorise the state to do so. If I am ever murdered or killed by accident, I wish to accept it as the will of God and let no man suffer in jail on my behalf.

My reason is that I believe that life does not end with the extinguishing of one's body and that having another suffer in jail because of me would be detrimental to my karma. I say this while I am sane and healthy and under no pressure whatsoever.

We don't need any morphine. We just need Zyklon ZZZ.

Why are gulags better than hospices?

You don't have to die naturally in gulags.

The Andrews bill only passed because Australia has too many Cuntservatives in its Federal Government.