Absolutely so! Thank you, David!

Animals may not be people, in your mind, but people certainly are animals.
Homo Sapiens.
Just another species of animal.
The only species destroying its own environment for its own personal gratification.

The fact that 80% of people agree we should have the right to end our lives when we decide enough is enough yet we can't is a clear indictment of our so-called democracy which is supposed to be based on human rights.

And who says we can't? Politicians, religiously-deranged clerics, doctors who fear being sued, and lawyers!

To hell with them, I say. Let them mind their own business and stop interfering in the lives of others.

Dear oh dear,

Yet again that slide from suicide - which I fully support the decriminalisation of - to 'assisted suicide' (which could so easily be actual murder, particularly if family and other interested parties are involved). Wait for the slide into 'helping Alzheimer's patients die a dignified death'.

Yes, doctors and nurses in palliative care can increase the level of morphine to alleviate pain and distress of patients in their last hours, I can support that. But most certainly NOT family members or anybody who may stand to gain financially from a death.

Arm's-length suicide, with nobody else within cooee, should be an option and, in fact, it always is: we can swim out to sea or submerge ourselves in a bath, and nobody else has to be involved. We can OD on sleeping pills, use a plastic bag, drop off a cliff or step out in front of a bus, it depends on how clean or messy one wants to go. But the bottom line is that it has to be the individual's decision and action alone.

Preferably after utilising effective counselling services, that is. We each have only one life, and that's it: Poof ! Gone. Believers may make light of bringing a life to an end but they shouldn't kid themselves.

Joe

Joe, we all have one life and one death.

My mother died from bowel cancer many year ago. Whether or not she was vomiting up feces I do not know but by the time the medical profession had finished with her she was a drug addict and had swollen to twice her size. She died a hideous death.

I do not want such a death imposed upon me by authoritative 'others'.

I also do not want to swim our to sea because my fear of sharks is strong and being crushed under a bus seems rather grotesque.

What I want is a handful of life-ending pills which, surrounded by those I love, I can swallow with a glass of my favorite wine then go to sleep and not wake up again.

Surely that is not too much to ask for!

David G you are so correct.

yep David and you completely ignore that killing the unborn was about the poor 15 year old who was raped. Just ask the feminist. Now its for approx 100000 per year who simply don't want to take any responsibility for their actions. Plenty of gold diggers will be putting pressure on elderly no doubt. Women have babies killed for inconvenience, why not oldies?

"As a consequence, providing assistance to commit suicide remains a serious crime in all states and territories of Australia. Three states have life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, while in others the maximum penalty varies from 5 to 25 years."

Those who are serious about observing and maintaining respect for human life would argue that the current laws be retained

Absolutely agree with runner and Loudmouth.
David already has the option of a handful of pills, a glass of wine and a bewildered, traumatized audience of loved ones.
Isn't always the way with those who want to top themselves?
Either they want to take someone with them, or force them to watch/witness a macabre, look at me look at me, life ending ritual.
And in either case, technically if temporally insane?
And not the time to impose an unsound life shortening decision.
That said David, just be sure not to overdo the sleeping pills, so as to make yourself sick, and simply throw up the intended easy way out.
No one imposed anything on your mother David!
The doctors didn't give her the cancer.
But maybe your mean penny pinching did?
And a good reason for the elderly to have annual checkups or tests, while there's time to cut out/remove the cancer?
MRI's may be costly, but no cancer is usually missed?
There are foods that literally prevent cancer, and meditation practices, that has shown to actually reverse it.
It's just not for quitters though, and you want to just give up?
Or encourage others to follow your lead?
Say two weeks before clinical trails underway in the USA, proves that we have yet another very promising breakthrough; like cancer shrinking thalidomide, that if it'd been available then, would have cured your mother? [And no, it's not suitable for pregnant women!]
How much better would we treat each other and the planet, if we simply accepted reincarnation and Karma, as literal fact? As indeed, there's no easy way out!
Rhrosty.

Dear Runner,

I am pretty convinced that David does not advocate killing either the unborn or the mature-aged. All he says is that government should not be interfering, in effect passing those cases of murder up to the higher court in heaven.

Government is a secular, violent, corrupt and unordained body, which has no moral authority to supposedly act as our guardian of morality or religion.

Keep in mind that if you allow these bastards of the government, who have no means to tell a virtue from sin or a holy scripture from sleazy literature, to exert force on sinners, then there will come a day when the wind changes and their laws turn back against religion. What will you do for example if they legislate against communion, making it illegal? Don't wait for that to happen - stop that unwholesome body now!

Legalising assisted suicide is a classic example where "hard cases" are cited to bring about what may turn out to be a bad law. The author uses libertarian arguments, though more commonly advocates cite facilitating "death with dignity" or "alleviation of suffering" as the justification.

For sake of balance you need to look at cases at the other end of the spectrum. How many people would support the assisted suicide of a distraught jilted young lover? What about a desire for suicide on the part of some students who failed their exams or people who just suffered a financial catastrophe or a traumatic divorce?

While suicide in some cases can end prolonged suffering, it has an insidious aspect. Unexpectedly finding a suicide victim can be very upsetting, especially when a person suicides by firearm, hanging or other violent means. Suicide also seems to have demonstration effects in encouraging some relatives (over the longer term) to follow suit if they suffer a trauma in life.

It is already common for doctors to allow the terminally ill to die when their lives could be prolonged through intensive care and the like. On two occasions (as next of kin) I have been asked by doctors whether I wanted my relative to be kept on life support. My answer was the same in both cases. I said I favoured saving the persons life, but not to the point where it merely meant prolonging their death.

Rhosty, are you and LEGO twins? Both of you are ignorant windbags who employ black and white thinking to all issues (see the Binoy thread).

An intelligent human knows there are many way of looking at every issues. The brain-dead tend to think in simplistic terms.

P.S. Your suggestions about my mother are tribute to your complete lack of taste, breeding and sensitivity!

The only time assisted suicide is moral is when it's the person's choice, and when the person is going to die soon anyway. It takes the cruelty and pain out of death.

It's NOT moral when it's used for mentally ill or depressed people to commit suicide.

Dear Bren,

<<How many people would support the assisted suicide of a distraught jilted young lover?>>

That's an irrelevant question: of course there would be very few of those and of course I wouldn't be among them, supporting that (assisted or otherwise) suicide of that young lover.

The correct question is not about "supporting" but about "interfering with without permission" - which neither myself nor anyone else may morally do.

If there are people who wish to receive help in stopping them from committing suicide if/when they ever become a disappointed lover, bankrupt, divorced or fail-an-exam, etc. then let them sign a contract to that effect in advance, with whoever they want to stop them in those cases, be that the government, another person, or any other group of people they authorise.

Dear Mollie,

I agree that suicide, assisted or otherwise, is immoral.
This however does not grant states a legitimate right to stop it from happening anyway and to lock up those involved.

Dear Yuyutsu

The article states as follows:

"There is no better indication of individual freedom than the ability to decide what to do with our own body. If the law prevents us from making free choices about it then we are not really free at all; our bodies belong to the State...........But there is a catch. The law says we are only permitted to die by our own hand, without assistance.......... The denial of the right to die at a time of our choosing can result in a lingering, painful death. It can also compel people to end their lives earlier than they would prefer, to escape the risk that they will become incapable of doing it for themselves. Legalisation of assisted suicide is long overdue in Australia".

While most of those supporting assisted suicide only support the concept in the case of the terminally ill, my reading of the article is that it goes much further. The author seems to advocate extreme libertarianism to the point that not only does he believe that everybody has the right to commit suicide, but he also seems to support the right of third parties to assist any suicide (not just for the seriously ill).

A key problem with suicide is that there is no going back and it is impossible to enforce a "cooling-off" period. While I concede that one can make an arguable case for assisting the terminally ill to end their lives, I can see no public interest or other reason for contemplating assisted suicide in other circumstances

"How many people would support the assisted suicide of a distraught jilted young lover? What about a desire for suicide on the part of some students who failed their exams or people who just suffered a financial catastrophe or a traumatic divorce?"

Interesting question.

It depends on what you mean by support. I'll use the word 'safe' below to indicate means that produce the intended outcome - death of the person trying to suicide but which mitigate the controllable factors as much as possible.

I'd support it on the basis of being the least harmful of the options. I'd support options that bring with them some certainty, have a requirement for some a clear decision and don't place others at risk or leave a mess for others to deal.

Most of the DIY options available to the public carry with them a number of very ugly aspects beyond the suicide itself.
- a risk that it only partly works leaving the person who intended to end their life alive but badly injured in some way
- a risk that the means chosen will harm others. Jumping under a bus or train does massive harm to the drivers involved as well as those who may witness it or have to clean up the mess. Running a car into a semi places the semi drivers life does similar and places the drivers life at serious risk as well
- swimming out to sea quite likely means a search for the body and possibly the searchers risking their own lives

This is not a situation where suicide does not exist under current laws and adding support for controlled 'safe' options would not introduce suicide as a new thing.

It might reduce the unintended side effects of the means currently available to most people, it would with some safeguards in place make suicide more accessible to some who currently have no viable means to end their own lives when has become intolerable through being incapacitated.

R0bert

It's not easy, no doubt there is some risk of people being coached into a decision to end their own lives who would not otherwise make that decision (and I have little doubt that happens now).

The onus is on those arguing against access to 'safe' means of suicide that it actually makes any of the issues they raise in protest worse.

R0bert

Hi Yuyutsu,

I did not say suicide is immoral. It's NOT immoral. A lot of mentally ill people attempt suicide, and it's NOT their fault.

If a mentally ill person wants suicide, it IS immoral to assist. If a person has a terminal condition and that person wants suicide, it's NOT immoral to assist.

If any person commits suicide, for whatever reason, that person is not guilty of an immoral act.

Mollieme,

What do you have to back up your dogmatic statements though?

You seem to lump all mentally ill into the same basket and discount their suffering.

Do you imagine that the terminally ill would always be disposable elderly - hey, might as well top yourself fella and save the health budget for the young deserving - or do you believe that the suffering from mental illness is lesser, or is easily controlled to deliver some reasonable quality of life?

I am not arguing either way, just interested to know the ethical rationalisation that would encourage and assists some to die but not others. Because it does seem that the principles and ethics are very relaxed where the subject is old. BYW, how would you define old?

Hi onthebeach,

I think you misunderstand what I wrote. The extreme suffering of the mentally ill is very relevant indeed, and it is this mental suffering/personality disorders that could lead them to commit suicide. I think it's wrong to assist them in suicide. It's better to offer them support, counseling and medical psychiatric help, because with help they can have the opportunity to live a long life. Whereas with suicide, they have no future whatsoever. It's more humane to offer hope for the mentally ill, than to offer suicide.

The terminally ill people who wish to die are a totally different matter. They will die soon anyway. They have no hope whatsoever of a future life regardless of anything. They are going to die soon anyway --- end of story. It matters not whether they are 20 years old or 90 years old -- death is soon going to happen. I think it's humane to offer these people assisted suicide, under medical supervision. It enables them to die without extended pain and suffering that they would otherwise have to go through. Death under these circumstances is painless, almost instant and humane

God almighty.

The slide from:

* suicide to

* 'assisted' suicide to

* 'assisted' suicide of the mentally ill to -

What the hell next ?

'Assisted' suicide ? No, absolutely not. Can't some of you understand that the presence of another person at a person's death immediately raises questions of complicity, and possible culpability ? What's the matter with your brains ? Are you buried so deep in your latest-design arm-chairs, sipping your south-side 1976 Chardonnay, that you understand nothing of the actual, living world, you think living forever is an option ?

Lesson 1: death is forever. There is no return. There is no 'other' life. Do not pass go, do not collect $ 200.

Lesson 2: if you are anywhere near someone at the moment of their death, you - quite reasonably - may be suspected by police of being involved in that death, perhaps even causing it. ESPECIALLY if you are a family member. i.e. ESPECIALLY if you stand to gain from that death.

Christ, have some of you got two brain cells to rub together ?

Joe

Joe, "Christ, have some of you got two brain cells to rub together ?"

Unnecessary.

Death happens to us all at some stage. This is about timing, not about either dying or not dying. Personally at this point in my life I'd prefer a not dying option if it was available and on my terms.

I can though imagine circumstances where that would not be the case. Suicide rates under our current legal system indicate that far too many people reach such circumstances in their lives, often without feeling that they can safely turn to anybody for help or support. Sometimes meaning that other options may not be covered which might have given them an alternative.

Safeguards won't be perfect but again I point out this is not green fields, people suicide now. Often traumatising those left to deal with the event itself or the aftermath. Others who would prefer to end their lives lack access to the means to do so and live on in great suffering.

Joe why not engage with the topic in a more constructive manner. You are to bright and decent for the kind of comment about those with a different view such as the one I highlighted.

As a start, which do you think is the greater evil or greater risk? For people to have the option of an assisted suicide under controlled conditions after counselling or the current situation where they have to improvise with often uncertain methods and likely trauma for those dealing with the aftermath? Loaded question I know but that to me seems to be the basics of the case for and against.

R0bert

Two hundred thousand innocent people killed in an Iraq war, and possibly another two hundred thousand will be euthanised in a new Iraq war, of course this is legal, Governments and the media are all in favour of this type of euthanising, but when we come to a person suffering in pain and loss of dignity with a terminal illness and wanting to end their suffering, the Government intervenes and says "no you cannot do that
it is against the law"
Every one must have the choice to end their lives at end of life as they see fit, it should as mentioned have nothing to do with Governments, it is my life, not yours, if you want to die in pain that is your choice, I am happy for you, but don't expect me to die in pain like yourself.
A person bombed has no choice or say in their end of life choices

Robert,

Neither. False dilemma. I can appreciate that in a situation where someone is dying, with obviously only hours to live, and in pain or distress, that palliative care nurses or doctors may administer some form of relief which may hasten the final hour. But let's not call that 'assisted suicide' or anything like that.

As for 'assisted suicide' of anybody with perhaps months or years left, or in reasonable health but of a downcast mind, who can't bring themselves to do the deed alone but needs a 'friend' to do it: no. That's likely to be classified as murder.

As for this cosy scenario in which someone is helped by loving relations to end it all, surrounded by so much love and concern: bullsh!t. No. By definition, one's 'loved ones' may stand to gain financially from one's death, so all concerned could be charged with murder, even more so.

So let's not let this 'discussion' slide ever closer to the knocking off of Alzheimer's patients, the elderly, the mentally ill, and perhaps the deformed. Who's next, the left-handed ? People with red hair ?

Let's draw the line under suicide - with nobody else involved - and leave it at that. Legalise suicide, or at least attempted suicide. But wait: when was the last time anybody was charged with attempted suicide, even though it may still be on the books as an offense ? Of course, anybody contemplating such an end should be counselled to the nth degree, supported warmly by their 'loving family and relations', embraced by friends, given examples of limbless people striving to live the best lives they can, etc.

On the other hand, maybe there is some value in developing different laws for Green voters ........

Joe

The gulf between the Greens' euthanasia and the general public can be seen here and I do believe that Tony Abbott was reflecting the community view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpCj4F4aFlw

I would also agree with Abbott when he says that if you really want to unleash economic rationalisation on the frail aged give them that option (near end of video).

The Greens have often proposed death taxes and there is fostering of intergenerational jealousy (not only the Greens) which is often being surfaced in connection with housing. Look out, oldies!

Dear Bren,

<<The author seems to advocate extreme libertarianism to the point that not only does he believe that everybody has the right to commit suicide, but he also seems to support the right of third parties to assist any suicide (not just for the seriously ill).>>

And I fully agree with the author: what's "extreme" about NOT persecuting (or prosecuting) people who do such-and-such? Extremism is to persecute others for doing things you don't like (and indeed, this particular act happens to be something that I dislike), not vice-versa.

I don't support, nor do I think does the author, the RIGHT of third parties to assist any suicide, for nobody needs to give them such rights - I simply believe that to begin with, nobody has a legitimate basis to take their freedom away to do so.

Dear Mollie,

We seem to disagree about the morality of some cases, which I consider immoral while you consider moral. We could therefore enter a full-on long discussion about the religious/spiritual/theological aspects of suicide and assisting suicide.

However, this is not necessary, for even if I am wrong, this changes nothing: for the purpose of this thread, all I say is that government has no right to enforce morality, whatever that is, that this is totally outside their legitimate sphere of action.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Perhaps what may seem to be a 'moral act' to one person, assisting a dear friend to top themselves, with massive lots of love and deepest concern, may seem to be a criminal act to the justice system. How would you distinguish one from the other ?

If someone reasonably healthy dies - i.e. outside of a medical or palliative situation - and someone else is present, who may even admit assisting the deceased, then moral all you like, the police may consider it a crime scene.

And how are you going to prove otherwise ? Worse still, if you stand to gain in any way from the passing of the deceased, how do you avoid a charge of premeditated murder, for personal gain, or at the very least, manslaughter ?

Why do people think this is all so easy ?

Joe

Joe, I don't think its necessarily easy and I doubt that many would advocate a system where you can drop into the chemist (or maybe Wollies) and pick up a pack of tablets for your rich auntie and no questions asked.

There would need to be some controls around it. For a start some conselling to ensure that the person seeking an assisted suicide was doing so without coaching and was aware of any viable options that might be available. Its also in my view reasonable to require the presence of someone with no direct interest in the outcome be present during any legal assisted suicide.

A number of options were mentioned earlier in the thread for people to end their own lives under current laws. All of them in my view have some serious down sides far beyong the suicide itself, I earlier mentioned a number of the down sides mostly around the risk of only partial success or trauma for those driving the vehicle someone jumps under, discovering the result or cleaning up the mess.

Even taking a handful of pills has the risk for most people of being discovered before its finished and being rushed to emergency treatment or great distress to the person finding the body if successful. Current laws don't leave most people many options to end their lives in a controlled manner without a whole lot of uncontrollable risk attached either for themselves or others.

R0bert

Hi Robert,

No, what I meant was that it's not easy to differentiate suicide from murder, if other people, particularly family members, are anywhere near the scene.

The problem with this sort of discussion is that completely different situations are treated as if they are very similar - (A) the suicide of relatively healthy people on the one hand, and (B) the 'assisted' death of people in their last hours, and in distress, on the other.

If, in (A), after counselling and entreaties, someone decides that they still want to take their own life, then they will find a way. If they also want to say goodbye to loved ones (who presumably have used every effort to dissuade them), then they can put on a sort of wake (perhaps in front of the roaring fires of the crematorium: hey, a new business idea for funeral parlours), a pre-memorial, where they can crack jokes, tell scurrilous yarns about the pre-deceased, and generally have a good time, before the pre-deceased goes off on his or her own into an adjacent room, with the pills and plastic bag.

Who knows, their genuine friends may persuade the intended deceased that, with all its faults and tragedies, life may be worth living after all.

Joe

David G the people you mention seem to be extremely happy for innocent people to be euthanised in war, what hypocrites they are, one only hopes when they are vomiting up faeces and bleeding from the anus and in extreme pain and dignity loss, having to have someone wipe their rectum for them ,lets hope they enjoy every moment of it,
Perhaps then they will realise what 80% of Australians are wanting, that is Voluntary Euthanasia.

Legislation and protocols need to be implemented in Australia sooner rather than later. What happens now is pretty haphazard and actually not in consultation with the patient. If people only knew what is happening as we 'debate' on this on any given day in an Australian hospital near you.

People who do not want to avail themselves of this do not need to, but bear in mind that you had better have very clear Health Care Directives with you. Who knows, maybe the doc who is attending you decides you've suffered enough and drastically ups the meds without realizing you want to suffer to the bitter end, no matter how long it takes. That is the offensive part. Who, but you are to determine whether you have suffered enough? Why does anybody think they have a right to determine anything about my end-of-life decisions or my suffering?

What needs to be understood is that this is about people who want to end their unbearable suffering they are not depressed jilted lovers, going through a bad patch for which a dose of Zoloft might help. This is NOT about depression. This is NOT about old people. Old people have a tendency to die of old age and only require medical staff AND family members to interfere as little as possible with unnecessary life prolonging actions. Like insisting that granny eats when she doesn't want to. Families guilt tripping their elderly dying relatives by making them do stuff they don't want to do. Have blood test, when they don't want to. Just so they'll get better!

And by the way. Stats in other countries show, that only a tiny portion of people who have decided they would like to be able to be assisted in dying actually end up dying this way. By being in control, suffering becomes more bearable and what's left is done living,not obsessing and fear about the end.

Ojnab, thanks heavens there are a few on this thread that can think for themselves and have a conscience, and who realize the amount of suffering that the religiously deranged, black-and-white thinkers, and the cruel people who don't care about the suffering of the dying, cause.

I detest them, one and all! We put people in jail for causing suffering to dumb animals but suffering humans just don't seem to matter.

I feel that most of the critics of euthanasia are scared out of their minds by death, fear that they will miss out on the Big Lotto in the Sky, greatly fear their relatives and friends, and they try to avoid the realities of death because they are immature cowards!

Such people also contribute to a planet filled by war.

A pox on them I say!

Dear Joe,

<<Perhaps what may seem to be a 'moral act' to one person... may seem to be a criminal act to the justice system. How would you distinguish one from the other?>>

There's no need to distinguish:

A moral act could happen to be illegal, just as a legal act could happen to be immoral. While I can talk forever about morality and immorality with my friends who are willing to listen, the state and its laws have nothing to do with morality (in fact, the state itself is an immoral body).

The law considers something a crime only because some legislator decided that it is. That doesn't imply that the legislator had any moral or legitimate right to impose that law on others.

<<And how are you going to prove otherwise?>>

Whenever a person agrees to be killed, then it's not murder to kill them and should not be illegal (it's still likely to be immoral). I may or may not be able to prove consent (for example by presenting a video or a letter-of-consent signed in front of a JP). If I cannot, then I could possibly be wrongly charged of murder: people can make mistakes, so that's a risk I may need to consider.

Look, the only legitimate function of the state is to protect those citizens who wish to be protected by it. If it cannot fulfil this function without occasionally erring and protecting someone who doesn't want to be protected, and if the error is honest, then they may be excused.

Suppose two men agree on a duel, whereby the winner will kill and inherit the other. Suppose also that they signed a release-form in advance and provided reliable witnesses. That would be highly immoral and foolish, but it's not a murder and it shouldn't be illegal (assuming the agreed terms of the duel were met and no cheating occurred).

Yes, it is manslaughter, but as the now-dead person refused to authorise the state to protect him/her from it, the state has no authority to act in this matter on his behalf.

To Paul Russell, Kevin Andrews, Tony Abbott et al:

Q: Why are gulags better than hospices?

A: You don't have to die naturally in gulags.

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

Crap, Yuyutsu: if you killed someone in a duel, you would be up for murder.

The state has an OBLIGATION to protect people, even from themselves.

Joe

Dear Joe,

The only legitimate source of power of a state, is the sum of legitimate powers bestowed on it by willing individuals.

Any actions of the state which do not fall under this category, are immoral violence.

Any legitimate state must be born of an agreement by a group of individuals to combine their powers in mutual self-defence. As such indeed, the state has an obligation to protect people, even from themselves IF THAT'S WHAT THE AGREEMENT STATES - but only those people who are party to that agreement, freely entered.

When a person is unwilling to authorise the state to use their legitimate right of self-defence as his/her agent/proxy, nothing else allows the state to do so.

Yes, if I were to kill someone in an agreed duel, where we both were fool enough to have agreed in advance that the other may kill us if they can and not be punished, then as things stand in 21st century Australia, I would be charged with murder - but that's the same in principle as saying that if I walk in some downtown slum neighbourhood after dark, then I can expect to be raped.

Yuyutsu,

Such an 'agreement' is implicit when we vote: imagine all the possible exceptions that every person - and often his dog as well - could demand, on all manner of personal grounds to opt out of the state, if it were possible. The State has an obligation to protect you, and to protect me.

And it certainly has a duty to protect the frail, the ill and the mentally-impaired.

So a blanket right to be involved in someone else's death is not likely to be granted any time soon. Thank Christ for that.

Joe

What utter crap Loudmouth, the Government should not have any right to dictate to me on my end of life deciisions, it is my life not yours or any one else's, so you also believe it is ok to kill innocent people in war who have no say in their end of life choices, you like the religious right are hypocrites.

Loudmouth, would you want to be dehydrated to death over a week and a half? Because that's the "best" the current law allows.

Yes Ahame Tan let Loudmouth suffer excruciating pain and indignities when the time comes for his exit from this life, he will love every moment of it I am sure.

That's exactly why anti-choicers should be denied access to ALL analgesia under anti-hypocrisy legislation, ojnab.

Dear Joe,

<<So a blanket right to be involved in someone else's death is not likely to be granted any time soon. Thank Christ for that.>>

Indeed. That would be a very dark day when state gives people a blanket right to kill.

But I never asked for any rights. All I demand is that the state stops harassing such people who want nothing to do with it, including (but not limited to) if/when they wish to kill each other, as well as many other things which I do not personally approve.

Yes, this also includes the harassment of people who do not wish to vote. Even so, voting can also be undertaken, as I do, in attempt to mitigate the violence of the state rather than in agreement to have anything to do with it.

Yes, in the very least people should be able to opt out of the state. Indeed, to be clean and proper, membership in any organisation, including a state, should be voluntary and require an explicit opt-in.

Some little Napoleons may delude themselves that they and their state have a mission to protect everyone whether they want it or not. Some even claim they were assigned that mission by God, to run this world on His behalf, so to speak (something I never actually told them...) - the name for it is 'megalomania'.

That's how it is, Yuyutsu - the State is obligated to protect everybody in it, even from themselves, and regardless of any little Napoleons who want to opt out of it.

OnjaBullfrog, and Ayatimtam,

My wife died six years ago next Thursday, of liver cancer, so I'm counting down and re-living the horror of each day. Yes, she was dehydrating and I knew that the custard I fed her would not really do much to keep her fluids up, the liver couldn't process food any more and any fluid would go straight into her tissues. She bore it all with incredible courage, as dying people so often do; she was more worried about the kids. As she told the doc, on a scale of 1-10, her pain was only about 4.

I think she went when she meant to go, thanks to the palliative care nurses. Every day I go through the algorithm: am I dreaming ? no. Can I do a deal with God if she exists ? Can she come back for just one day every year ? No., not going to happen. Okay, one hour ? No. Okay, one minute ? No. Never again.

I'm very proud of her, I was so lucky: she was one of only two Aboriginal people referred to by Noel Pearson in his article "Radical Hope", and always had high hopes for Indigenous success in higher education. She would be so happy to know of 36,000 graduates across the country now. 50,000 by 2020 is likely, as she always asserted it would be, even back in 2002.

We can all make a difference. But only while we're alive. It depends how we make use of our one-and-only life.

Joe

Dear Joe,

The state as it stands, perhaps all states - but that makes no difference, is an illegitimate organisation whose existence is based on violence. It might obligate itself to many things, none of which is moral: that's as if you told me that you are "obligated" to 'know' (in the biblical sense) every beautiful woman on earth: while you could consider yourself a knight in shining armour on some holy crusade, in reality you would just be a serial rapist. In any case, your grandiose ideas would obligate none of those ladies whom you feel generously obliged to deflower.

Joe it must be understood that I do not want to be kept alive in a vegative state, this should be my right and mine alone, I have already indicated life support must not be used when death is imminent, it would be useless, if you were happy with the care your wife received, that should be how it should be with yourself, I do not begrudge you the way you handled the situation, that was your decision, likewise I must be my decision at my ending.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I hadn't thought about deflowering every beautiful woman on earth, but if that's what floats your boat, go for it :)

I'm simply stating the obvious, that any modern 'State', good or bad, has the obligation for the safety and security of everybody within it, and that most certainly includes the protection of their right to life.

Hence the delegitimation of even suicide, let alone murder. I don't make the rules :(

Joe

Joe the right to life by the State, tell me where is it? killing ordinary people in any war is not any country or state protecting life , it is exterminating them, surely you agree with that? you also must agree that a person must have the right to end their own life when they feel they have had enough of severe pain and dignity loss and no hope of recovery, don't deny that right to them, it does not concern me what you do, that is your right, so have compassion for the people who wish to die by Voluntary Euthanasia to end their suffering, that is there right.

Onjab,

Yes, I've written many times that suicide should be decriminalised. I'm not sure how a person who has suicided, as you are keen to do, can be further punished - perhaps by a fine or locking their body up for a time, like three months ? If you want to do it, after support and counselling, then give it a go.

But the real issue here isn't just suicide, but 'assisted' killing, isn't it ? The involvement of other people ? Don't blur the two issues, please.

Joe

Dear Ojnab,

<<so have compassion for the people who wish to die by Voluntary Euthanasia to end their suffering, that is there right.>>

Are you a beggar that you ask for favours and compassion from Joe's State? First they take away your freedom, then you beg for them to return some of it back as "rights"!

Who the hell are they in the first place to tell you what you may or may not do?

Sorry, Yuyutsu & Najbo,

Are you talking about suicide, or 'assisted' suicide here ?

Nobjob, Every bull-frog is entitled to puff himself up and demand the obvious from the world: if you really want to do it, who's stopping you ? There's more than a little "I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips, let no dog bark" about your brave declaration that you will demand the right to top yourself.

Can we bury that side of the discussion, once and for all ? We - all three of us - are FOR suicide, pure and simple, agreed ?

Let's move on to the real guts of this issue, and stop trying to confuse the two.

We know that "assisted suicide" is by no means 'pure and simple', especially if it involves anybody who stands to gain from a death.

Convince me :)

Joe
www.firstsources.inf

Dear Joe,

<<We - all three of us - are FOR suicide, pure and simple, agreed ?>>

Definitely not!

I believe that suicide is a sin.

But I also believe that the state has no authority to prevent people from sinning or to punish them for their sins. If you believe in heaven, then this will be taken care of at the pearly gates and if you believe in karma, then this will be taken care of in your next lifetime.

As for assisting the suicide of others, the question whether it's a sin or not is rather more complex and I don't think we need to get into it here. Instead, I am stating something quite simple:

The only authority of the state comes from [ordinary] people voluntarily handing some of their individual powers and authorising it (the state) to act on their behalf. One of those powers is self-protection. If you never handed that power over to the state (or if you opt out and withdraw that authority), then the state has no legitimate power to protect you, which includes punishing those who kill you.

Distinguishing whether or not a now-dead person authorised the state to protect them against being killed in general or against a particular killer or method of killing, could at times be ambiguous (but not always). We can continue to discuss what's to be done in the ambiguous cases, but we should keep in mind that when no ambiguity exists that the killed-person has NOT authorised the state to punish their killer, then the state has no right to punish that killer.

Whether one stands to gain from another's death can possibly add to the ambiguity of the case, but in no terms should it change the outcome once the ambiguity was resolved.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Okay, now I'm confused: if killing oneself is a sin, then surely killing somebody else is - to use you word - a sin ? Even if they urge you to do it ? And especially if they don't ?

I can appreciate your anarchist approach, that no state should dictate what someone wants to do with their life. My grand-dad claimed to be a Wobbly in the early twentieth century. As a Wobbly, opposed to all capitalist wars, yada yada, he still went off to Gallipoli.

I don't agree with that stance: in my view, we have obligations towards the state and towards our fellow citizens, just as they have towards us. We don't expect the State to pick us off the street at random,and drop us into a mincer, and we expect it - through its agencies of force such as the police, courts, jails and armed forces - to ensure that we can go about our normal business without any fear of being bashed to death or run over with impunity. Surely it's not that other sort of society ?

Each of us has our 'moral compass', or has to constantly strive to develop one (or should, in my view). A brilliant book has just come out - 'In Search of a Moral Compass" - by Kenan Malik - which I highly recommend: it's a beautiful, clear history of the philosophy of ethics, the constant struggle that we each have (this is my take on it) to know what to do in terms of right and wrong, good and evil. I don't know yet how it ends :)

Joe

This article is the self-centred and the narrow opinions of the elite class of secure citizens who are much farther away from the regular masses where the overwhelming majority of suicides are not old sane and happily lived individuals maybe simply wishing to avoid pain and humiliation in old age and illness, but in those regular people’s world most suicides are never euthanasia oriented but are rather tragic losses of the distressed and confused youth whom have few options of work and family and wealth or maybe the mentally ill people that society ignores often leading those sick minds to live in poverty and sleep on park benches.

I always see these legal discussions on suicide completely selfishly prejudiced and focused on the small fraction of suicides that are the types of euthanasia being exclusively dealt with and cared about.
When are the academics going to become decent and concerned for more than just their little world of elite, culturally closed off suburbs . . . . . and realize that the issue in discussion and in legislation needs to urgently be shook to clarity by dividing the suicide laws into 2 main types – namely the main suicides of physically healthy but mentally distressed individuals as separate and apart from the 2nd category of the minority euthanasia suicides that involve fully conscious and stable individuals?

Surely anyone can comprehend that the current state of the debate which for all intents and purposes deals only with the euthanasia type suicides and espouses elegant notions of liberty and choice and rights, is why the legislation nation-wide on suicides has been tending to lean towards the whims of those euthanasia lobbyists evidence by the abrogation of suicide as a crime under law some decades ago.
Why not leave common suicides of disturbed people as a crime in all ways since it is effectively the “murder of the self by self” without sense . . . . . and make a separate legal concept and laws to suit which exclusively deals with the other types of suicides known to be euthanasia?

Dear Joe,

I was hoping not to digress into issues of morality and religion in this particular thread, because that could imply as if state laws have anything to do with morality.

Anyway, if you really need an example where killing others who urge so is not a sin, take the Jews besieged on Massada who knew that Roman victory was imminent, whereby if caught alive, they would be sold to slavery and forced to break their religion (eat pork, worship other gods, etc.), so they made a suicide pact where those selected by a lot had to kill the others (then the last had to suicide).

Yes, we do have obligations towards our fellow citizens (and all other sentient beings) - however, punishing them for their sins is not one of those. We MAY also have obligations towards the state IF we chose to be part of it, voluntarily, fully-informed and without coercion - but that's rarely the case.

SOME have expectations as you stated for the state, through its agencies of force such as the police, courts, jails and armed forces - to ensure that THEY can go about THEIR normal business without any fear of being bashed to death or run over with impunity. While no human(s) can truly deliver on that expectation, indeed, for those who want it, the state is obligated to do its best.

Yet there are others who are not sharing that expectation or are unwilling to pay its price - and they shouldn't. The state has neither obligation nor permission to protect them and punish their killers.

Dear Matthew,

<<I always see these legal discussions on suicide completely selfishly prejudiced>>

What's selfish about it?
Even if the option was given (legally), I would not be using it or benefit from it (because I consider it sinful).

Even those who do not consider suicide and assisting suicide sinful, but are well-off and educated, can get away from the Australian law, for example by travelling to Switzerland where euthanasia is legal. It's the poor, low-caste and homeless who don't have such options.

Hi Yuyutsu,

As an atheist, I don't have a concept of 'sin' - good and bad, right and wrong, yes (or at least I hope so), morally acceptable and morally reprehensible, yes, but not 'sin'.

I don't think suicide is 'good', in that we each have only one finite life which we should not think about too cavalierly: once you go, you're gone. Forever. You leave behind memories, but you don't exist any more to revel in them. Dust to dust.

But I don't think suicide should be illegal, even with proper counselling services in place: any legal repercussions - such as inheritance issues - should not discriminate.

But this is even more so, why suicide has to be an individual's action, ideally after counselling: with absolutely nobody else seen to be involved.

As you can appreciate, I would strongly support the work of palliative nurses and doctors to alleviate pain and distress, even if this may hasten someone's last hours in the process. I have confidence that they know completely what they are doing and the consequences of their actions.

But I certainly would oppose the involvement of 'friends' and family members being involved in that process.

So can we please differentiate suicide from " 'assisted' suicide", once and for all ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

You say you are an atheist, but if indeed you want nothing to do with God, just as I want nothing to do with the state, then we have no basis to discuss morality.

I do suspect however, that you are an atheist only by name, that you simply do not reference the divine in the traditional Western terms, such as "Father", "Creator" or "Supreme-Being": I have no problem with that as these terms are anyway only optional practical methods in attempt to engage the mind with the inconceivable. But you do seem to genuinely care about others, something a true atheist wouldn't if they can get away with it, because as far as they're concerned there is no common ground between you and me.

<<So can we please differentiate suicide from " 'assisted' suicide", once and for all?>>

Well if you voluntarily wish to subject yourself to the state and its laws, then you already have it because the state already differentiated those things for you, then you don't need my advise or agreement. My only complaint is that they impose their laws on others without consent, which is plain and simple, bullying. Had membership in states been voluntary as-should, then your state could legitimately legislate whatever it likes: it could legislate for example that everyone must stand on their head between 1pm-3pm, and you would be obliged to do so.

Personally, I don't want to suicide, I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to be killed, but if by chance I do then I don't want to punish my killer: The last thing I need besides losing my body is to also 'gain' the karma of causing someone to spend their years in jail.

<<But I certainly would oppose the involvement of 'friends' and family members being involved in that process.>>

That's quite reasonable and in most circumstances I oppose it too, but it's irrelevant to this article: the question here is whether you agree or oppose to people being forcibly imprisoned for things they do exclusively between them with full and informed consent.

Hi Yuyutsu,

As far as I can tell, I'm an atheist, pure and simple. I don't think there is anything divine anywhere in the universe - wonders and mysteries, the unknown, yes; miracles and gods and demons, no.

You raise an interesting point: that we can opt out of the protection of the state. A couple of blokes got stabbed last night here in Adelaide (it is the Violent Crime Capital of Australia, after all), but imagine if those blokes had signed documents to opt out: would police have to check their databases before responding to a call-out, and simply driven away if they found that the victims did not come under the state's care ? If you were murdered, should the state turn a blind eye ? It can get messy, can't it ?

And as for standing on our heads - if a government demanded that, they wouldn't get my vote next time. Governments are supposed to represent us, the majority of us, so why should they ever contemplate anything as silly ? They would be out on their ear.

I'm glad that we've differentiated conceptually between suicide and 'assisted' suicide. Now we can get somewhere :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe Governments are supposed to represent us, funny about that, they seem not to represent us when 80% of the Australian population want to have the right to end their lives with VE, perhaps the 80% like me are talking rubbish! eh Joe, it is nice to think we agree for once on something Joe, Atheism, I am with you a 100%

Hi Onjab,

80 % ? Isn't it fun to pluck figures out of thin air ?

Murder is not legal yet, mate. And how do you separate out murder from 'assisted' suicide, to the satisfaction of the law ? Sorry, the law still counts for something. And states have the duty to uphold it.

Joe

Joe I would advise you to ring SAVES, that is South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, they will tell you the same 80% of Australians want to end their lives when the illness is terminal, or ring any other VE society in Australia, it is fact not plucked out of the air, being involved in this organisation we hope to have VE passed by Parliament in S.A. In the near future, if you read the daily papers you would be very much aware of this. It is my life and must be my choice to end it when a terminal illness is present, nothing to do with you or anyone else or Government

Onjab,

Yes, you're talking about suicide. Yes. You're not talking about 'assisted' suicide. Don't blur the two very different issues.

Joe

Yuyutsu,

When I say that most of the legal debate about “suicide” and “suicide assistance” as it pertains to legislation and policy is narrow in focus only dealing with old terminal and clear-headed candidates who may wish to artificially through medical means and health professionals make a mortal exit in their own way and before any perceived indignities arise.
That is to say, the “assisted suicides” called “euthanasia” as above are more like a highly organised and supervised medical procedure designed to bring a person of great age and/or severe terminal illness certain to end in extreme pain and indignity, to an early and easy death in a medical or operation type setting . It is actually a health procedure like putting a sick pet to sleep at the vet.
“Suicides” as commonly is the case on the other hand that are not of this type of medical procedure but are rather those tragedies involving severely mentally disordered and distressed individuals who may have chronic mental illness or emotional damage from childhood abuse and neglect, or maybe a person that had extreme misfortune and pressure from relationship loss or financial loss etc.

Thus why is all the debate and focus in law and media entirely on the mere “medical procedure” at the expense and oversight of the issues and realities involving the majority of actual suicides of crazed and sick people who need our help not our blessing?

That is why I feel the euthanasia debate is selfishly conducted since, not that it shouldn’t be delat with and laws set up for those in need [I think so] . . . . but because the agenda of those behind it has the effect of blanketing out the real suicide issues and legal concerns therein.

The result is that vulnerable and irrational "nobodies" continue to die tragically hour after hour

Dear Matthew,

I have no objection for those who want to be protected by the state to continue being protected by it.

I am not making a special case for euthanasia or for suicides or for assisted suicides because it's none of my business what kind of deaths certain people agreed with the state to protect them from - so long of course as they in fact agreed, then the state is allowed to use force to protect them.

However, most of us have never voluntarily agreed to have anything to do with the state. In this situation, while the state may still legitimately protect against myself those who did agree with it, it may not legitimately attempt to protect me against them.

It may be that the euthanasia debate is conducted by some on selfish grounds, but as I explained, I have no selfish motive there because I do not intend to use that "opportunity" whether or not it is legal.

Vulnerable and irrational "nobodies" continue to die, but so do animals in slaughterhouses around Australia and so do many around the world through war, famine, poverty and plagues. Actually, so are whole suns being swallowed by black holes: What makes the "Australian government" of all things responsible for these but not for those? My clear answer is that it's nothing but the consent of "these" to be protected - nothing else allows the government to use force in attempt to protect them from whatever.

Dear Joe,

<<I don't think there is anything divine anywhere in the universe>>

That makes you 'atheist' by name, but not necessarily atheist by heart. Another example would be that believing that Jesus died for us all makes one 'Christian' by name, but not necessarily by heart. Thinking/believing in this-or-that is cheap and superficial, so I find it inadequate to classify people on that basis. Instead, I discovered that one doesn't need to believe in God's existence in order to love Him.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<You raise an interesting point: that we can opt out of the protection of the state.>>

It is of course tempting to feel protected by a powerful organisation, but at what cost? I believe that it is too high! One such cost I already mentioned (the karma accrued for making another spend their years in jail). Another cost is to become part of a violent oppressive body. It may well be that I could live comfortably under state protection, but so long as that state attempts to protect others, even one person, against their will, I cannot be part of that.

<<would police have to check their databases before responding to a call-out, and simply driven away if they found that the victims did not come under the state's care? If you were murdered, should the state turn a blind eye? It can get messy, can't it?>>

You raise some interesting practical questions. Let me answer by quoting Jewish law (Halacha):

Say a house collapsed on the Sabbath and it's feared that people are stuck in the rubble and time is of the essence to save them: although it's normally forbidden to dig on the Sabbath, concern for the loss of Jewish life wins and so the injunction is to dig the rubble. So long as it isn't clear whether survivors in the rubble are Jewish or not, Halacha says that a Jew must keep digging, but if it's found that the only survivors are non-Jewish, one must stop digging until the Sabbath ends.

In other words, a state has the duty of care for those who sought its protection, so as long as there is doubt whether or not victims are under state care, police must do it's work - but once there's no longer such doubt, they must stop.

<<And as for standing on our heads - if a government demanded that, they wouldn't get my vote next time.>>

I don't believe that any voting majority has a right to demand that I stand on my head, so I needn't have to wait for the next election.

Thanks Yuyutsu,

I really learn so much on OLO. Thanks god for differences of opinion.

Okay: I've never understood how you can love something, a being, that doesn't exist, i.e. a non-being. Yes, something or someone who once existed, of course. Yes, you can yearn for something that may not exist, the love of another person, or a McMansion, or a world trip. Although I suppose unrequited love is a form of loving what doesn't exist.

Your example of Halacha is most revealing: I was going to suggest that the Fire Department should be made up of goyim, that might get around that problem. When she was young, my grandmother acted in that role in the household of Lord Samuel, former Lord Mayor of London, founder of Shell: great times, she went all over Britain with the family.

But you touch on something fundamental: unless you can opt out, a state has precisely that 'Good Samaritan' obligation, to help those who are not necessarily of the same group as the helpers, to go out of their way and even risk their lives for people they don't know.

Even to this point: imagine that house had collapsed while a bloke was burgling it while everybody was at the synagogue, so that he's the only person trapped inside. The state would still have the obligation - unless he opted out somehow - to rescue him and ensure his care and health. Then throw the book at him.

Thanks again, Yuyutsu.

Joe

Dear Joe,

<<a state has precisely that 'Good Samaritan' obligation>>

But note the very fine line between a Good Samaritan and Don Quixote de la Mancha, who also believed himself to be a good Samaritan as he tried to save his Lady Dulcinea from the evil giants in the shape of windmills.