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.