To me the proportion of Anglicans or even Catholics supporting doctors giving a lethal dose deliberately to cause death is irrelevant to the fact that morality is not determined by popularity polls. The principle is that one may not perform an intrinsically evil act to secure a good outcome. In other words, the end does not justify the means.

Would the author define voluntary euthanasia, and provide the text of the questions that were asked in the 2012 Newspoll.

Kevo, VE is not a choice between life and death; it is a choice between two different ways of dying: one in pain and anguish or the other with peace and dignity, when the dying patient begs for a mercifully quick death. What is unChristian about the latter?! It is evil to DENY mercy, and not to prevent further injury or harm from ongoing agonising pain.

Christ's own death was quick compared to the average crucifixion victim. Perhaps he was granted Divine euthanasia?

There is significant theological support for VE, as explained in the article. Kevo either can't understand rational argument, or he arrogantly thinks he knows better than the majority of Christians, let alone the community generally. I'd like to know his real name, so I could see whether it ranks amongst the eminent theologians who support VE. I doubt it!

We live in a Democracy, Kevo, whether you like it or not! What right do you have to tell someone who thinks differently on this very personal issue that they have to suffer a horrible death just because dispassionate, merciless people like you say so! It is Voluntary, so it will only affect the people who ask for medical assistance to die. It won't affect you, so why do you oppose it?

You might think differently if you were in the advanced stages of Cancer, the pain from which cannot be fully alleviated. You might pray every day to die, but your prayers aren't answered. Then what would your attitude be?

Religions including Christianity have caused mass killings throughout history, against the wills of those killed. That is evil! Why then do you think that it is unacceptable to relieve people from end of life suffering when they beg for mercy?!

Your theological position has no rational merit.

Kevo clearly believes that we shouldn't have armed police or military forces either.
Please read and then reread "Geoffrey W" post.

Kevo, Christians like any other religion change their views on what is moral.Many years ago it was perfectly okay to stone people to death, or force a women to marry their rapist. Many Christian continue to support the death penalty.

Bottom line morality is built on populist opinion.

Dear Raycom

The SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society defines voluntary euthanasia as -
A quick and peaceful death brought about under medical supervision at the request of and in the interests of a patient in which prescribed safeguards are followed.

The definition applies to a person who is hopelessly ill with no other prospect of relief from suffering which that person finds intolerable.

I would also support Voluntary Medical Assistance in Dying, where the patient requests and the doctor prescribes the medication, but the patient must ingest it without assistance. A problem here can arise if the patient has Parkinson's or MND and has deteriorated to the extent that they can no longer drink from a glass or swallow. In all cases the doctor has a right of refusal to assist.

The Question asked in the 2012 Newspoll was -
"Thinking now about voluntary euthanasia, if a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing un-relievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose?"

Before you comment that such a question is loaded, I make two points
1) These are exactly the people we believe should be able to receive assistance.
2) Essentially the same question has been asked at intervals since 1962. In 1962 the yes was 47%, No was 39% and 14 % were undecided. Public opinion on this issue has changed and matured.

Also relevant is a Canadian Supreme Court decision last month - a unanimous decision by 9 judges has stated "The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," and has given the Canadian Parliament 12 months to introduce legislation to comply with the Supreme Court guidelines.

Ian Wood

I believe that Christians are being routinely misrepresented here?

What Christians do support is the administration of a large enough dose needed to relieve pain, and the giving of that dose decriminalized in law, so that no caring doctor can be tried for murder or manslaughter; for just administering a large enough dose to relieve pain; even where that dose proves to be lethal!

That's a very different kettle of fish to claiming Christian support for voluntary euthanasia. Which is used elsewhere (Canada, Belgium) as a permanent (cost effective) cure for depression and hopelessness!

And given those who make a living will can decide how they will be treated at a doctors hands; particularly if terminally ill, mandated voluntary euthanasia is hardly warranted!

If you want to take your own life, there are just so many ways of achieving that, including (mess free) painless drowning or freezing or carbon monoxide poisoning?

Just as long as you are the only one made to carry the responsibility for ending a human life; and absolutely at odds with the doctors code of ethics, or Hippocratic oath!
Rhrosty.

People who identify as christians? That takes in so many different views.In fact the word "christian" is almost meaningless.

As a christian I do not support euthenasia, voluntary or otherwise. It ccannot be supported biblically.

'Bottom line morality is built on populist opinion'

so its ok to stone homosexuals and infidels in Islamic nations he Cobber?

Dear runner

You present the usual bunk about the Bible. If you knew what it said you would know that the OT law is not relevant here.

Try informing yourself.

'You present the usual bunk about the Bible. If you knew what it said you would know that the OT law is not relevant here.'

Dashton

r u related to Triggs. You seem to make things up in your mind.

Dear runner

Who is Triggs?

No, you are the one making things up.

Rhrosty,

It is only a minority of Christians who might feel that they are being misrepresented. The majority of Christians believe that we should have the right to choose a peaceful and dignified death. I refer you to the website: www.christiansforve.org.au.

You refer to the principle of Double Effect, whereby it is merely the STATED INTENTION of the doctor when administering such a dose which determines whether it is Palliative Care or (currently illegal) Euthanasia. It is only a matter of semantics whether the same medical procedure is legal or not, and it is not currently regulated in the way that proposed VE procedures would be. This is neither good law nor procedure!

Those who are campaigning for VE are not for one minute thinking of the cost effectiveness - that is a spurious allegation put forward only by those who oppose VE. Those campaigning for VE are concerned ONLY with the quality of a person's life up until they draw their last breath.

Evidence in those jurisdictions which permit VE shows that the peace of mind which comes from knowing that death will be peaceful is very strong. A third of patients in Oregon who are given approval for VE don't actually use it. A Swiss doctor has stated that many people who have been given the choice of VE actually live longer than they otherwise would have. By opposing VE, you are thus depriving some people of both quantity and quality of life!

The fact that you suggest such unpleasant alternatives to VE as drowning, freezing or gassing oneself further demonstrates the irrationality of your point of view. You would rather some people continue to be forced to take such unpleasant, lonely measures than to give up your religious dogma! God help us, because you won't!

You have EVERY RIGHT not to choose VE for yourself if it becomes available, but you have NO RIGHT WHATEVER to prevent me from having the right to choose a peaceful and dignified death if I should ever be so unfortunate to suffer from a horrible illness which cannot be adequately palliated.

The science and technology of medicine is
transforming the treatment of the diseased
and the injured and millions of people owe
their health and lives to the dramatic medical
innovations of the past few decades. Some of the
new technologies however are creating new
problems even as they solve old ones. In particular,
the new technologies have given doctors and patients
a range of difficult life-or-death choices that they
did not have even a few years ago.

For example, terminally ill patients can now be kept
alive through artificial respiration, intravenous
feeding, electronic heart stimulation, mechanical
organ substitutes, or even transplants of body parts
from other people or animals. Consequently, medical
dilemmas frequently become moral and legal ones as well.

Until fairly recently births and deaths happened when
they happened, often without medical intervention. If a
baby was too premature or defective, or if a seriously
ill person was dying, there was little the family doctor
could do about it other than to offer comfort.

Today, most Australians are born and die in hospitals under
the supervision of medical personnel who sometimes decide to
keep them alive long beyond the point at which they would
normally have died. Patients can be hooked up for days,
months, or years to machines that sustain their lives, and
this step may be taken even if they are in constant pain or
even if they are permanently comatose.

Therefore, technologies that were intended to save people from
unnecessary death may actually have the effect of depriving them
of a dignified death.

Physicians are expected to do all they can to sustain life,
but the medical profession needs to have a discussion on
how far should a physician go to do just that when their
patients are in extreme pain, terminally ill, suffering,
and no hope of recovery. Why pursue a vigorous therapy
that would benefit no one except their own satisfaction
in thwarting death, regardless of the consequences.
Why not let the person die in peace and serenity?

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Thank you for that for that excellent post. It appears so well-informed that I have the impression you are speaking from personal or perhaps professional experience.

I do not have any such experience but have made an attempt to think through the question of life and death in the following essay. Your post prompts me to share these thoughts with you and invite your comments - if you feel so disposed :

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Dc1447c7d-6904-4d9e-a7d6-a67edd6fb115%26subId%3D300148&ei=0fL2VOHGMMrzat25gLgO&usg=AFQjCNGFEgm86rD84Z5IQxCtmCDeD0GZ6g&bvm=bv.87519884,d.d24

.

Yes Foxy, isn't it interesting that we can use a host of technology, & a small fortune to keep people who may not want to be, alive, when we can't bring the useful technology to those who need it in a timely fashion.

I have a dud knee. 2 years ago I was referred to a specialist, in the public system, for an examination, & probable knee replacement. When I got a letter recently, asking if I still required to see a specialist, I rang & asked why I had not yet seen one. I was told I was unlikely to see one in less than another year.

I am now at the stage I often have trouble walking the 70 yards to the front gate & back. I can only get into my cars because they are convertibles, & with the top down, I can step onto the seat, & slide down. I can only step up stairs one at a time, left foot first, & walking around the supermarket is very painful.

Now I understand we are short of money, & must spend carefully. I know many things are more important than my knee, but forcing people to stay alive, & spending a fortune on keeping them there, does appear counterproductive to me.

I would rather they fixed my knee now, then put me down, when I am no longer any use to my self. I'm sure that would prove cheaper in the long run.

Why do something so simple prove so hard to get right.

Like other contentious issues such as abortion and capital punishment, Christians have differing views amongst themselves, just like any other people.

Even though the Bible says ', thou shalt not kill' , many Christians in Australia support the illegal idea of a state sanctioned killing of criminals, but yet not the legal procedure of abortion, or the mere thought of voluntary euthanasia.

In my experience, as people start developing some of the age-related physical and mental disorders, they are more likely to change their minds about the possibility of voluntary euthanasia.

I would like to think it was available by the time I might need it, but I have been on the other side of the issue as well. If VE was legalized, would all doctors be expected to provide the drugs and give the final dose?

If it was not compulsory, then many doctors would not want to do this sad job, Christian or not. So there would be only a few willing to do it, and thus many patients may end up with a stranger ending their life for them.

I am still not sure how it would all pan out...

Hasbeen, I feel for you with your bung knee, as I also have a bad knee that will need replacing in a year or so...'a legacy of 30 years of pounding the cement floors of hospital wards and lifting many heavy patients!
I hope you get your replacement soon.

Dear Suse,

The bible does not say "Thou shalt not kill" but rather "Thou shalt not murder".
Most English translations are simply inaccurate, as already noticed by the author.

In fact, the bible reports without criticism the euthanasia cases of King Saul and Abimelech (/Abimelek), though their reason for being killed sooner was to avoid infamy rather than physical pain.

<<If VE was legalized, would all doctors be expected to provide the drugs and give the final dose?>>

It would definitely be wrong to expect them - but why doctors of all people? merciful killing is not a medical procedure!

Thankyou 'Foxy' and 'Banjo Paterson' for your intelligent and helpful contributions to the debate. The point that the Swiss have overwhelming support for their system proves that VE can work effectively. Whether or not the democratic result in Australia follows the same path is another issue.

You might both be interested to read the author's contribution to the Senate Inquiry: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Dying_with_Dignity/Submissions
The "Christian's Supporting Choice For Voluntary Euthanasia" submission is number 86 which you can download as a PDF. The website for that organisation is www.christiansforve.org.au

Suseonline, the answer to your question is easy. The legislation could easily provide that the patient must self-administer the lethal dose, as is the situation in Oregon. Doctors prescribe the medication to those who qualify for VE, and can be available to support the patient through the procedure. It can be possible for a patient who is not physically capable of self-administering the dose to obtain assistance from a compassionate doctor, or even a relative or friend to administer the medication.

Doctors in Oregon cannot be compelled to assist against their consciences, but there is no shortage of doctors who are willing to provide this final service of care to their patients. Similarly, there are many doctors in Australia who would be willing to assist in such a situation.

My personal involvement in this issue is that I am a candidate for the NSW Legislative Council, representing the Voluntary Euthanasia Party at the forthcoming election on 28 March. I refer interested readers to the website: www.vep.org.au which provides policy and campaign details.

Dear Banjo,

Thank You for your kind words.

I can't seem to be able to access the link you gave me.
My is an old computer - and it plays up regularly.
So, my apologies,
I am unable to comment at this time.
However, you are right. I did speak from personal
experience in my previous post. It's something that will
stay with me for quite sometime.

Dear Hassie,

I'm sorry about your knee.

I hope that you won't have too long to wait.

Have you investigated (through your specialist or GP)
if there are any medical
programs currently on offer - that would be able to help
you with your problem sooner?

My brother recently had his heart surgery done in Brisbane
through a special program that his specialist recommended.

Dear Geoffrey,

I wish you every success in your work.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

It’s a PDF document. This link might work better :

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Dc1447c7d-6904-4d9e-a7d6-a67edd6fb115%26subId%3D300148&ei=g5v5VNGlLYLfatrSgYAE&usg=AFQjCNGFEgm86rD84Z5IQxCtmCDeD0GZ6g&bvm=bv.87611401,d.d2s

If not, you could try googling :

"Exposure draft of the Medical Services (Dying with Dignity) Bill 2014 Submission 133"

.

Thanks for the good wishes Suse & Foxy. I hope you can get your knee in reasonable time Suse.

I'm not complaining. I expect this type of delay will become worse in the future as our medical costs for increasingly high technology continue to grow.

I received very prompt treatment with my heart attacks, & as such treatment is more critical than a knee, it is only right such treatment has priority.

I have seen enormously expensive medical treatment of our older population, & I know in my mother's case, she did not want any of it. We should be able to chose to die, when life is no longer enjoyable.

Yuyitsu "It would definitely be wrong to expect them - but why doctors of all people? merciful killing is not a medical procedure!"

Really?
I believe that in countries where VE is legal, it is carried out by doctors using drugs?
How would you suggest the deaths should occur, if not by medical procedure?

As for the bible, I would suggest that we all read into that exactly what we want it to say or mean...

Ian Wood: “A quick and peaceful death brought about under medical supervision at the request of and in the interests of a patient in which prescribed safeguards are followed.”

So what you mean in effect is doctors assisting patients to commit suicide. That can never be ethical.

Dear Suse,

Yes, the current practice is that where VE is legal it is carried out by doctors with drugs, but that need not remain so. It is also bad for the doctors to do that which goes against their Hippocratic oath. Doctors are supposed to dedicate their lives to healing, not to killing - which is a completely different service.

Killing someone by their own free request is not murder and should not be illegal so long as it is carried by the person(s) authorised by the one being killed and in the method(s) they requested.

While suicide is a sin, it is not the business of the state to prevent sinfulness, nor can it. When a suicide is assisted, the sinner is the one who commits suicide while their helper(s) remain free of sin.

Regarding the bible, I am not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's wrong, only that the English translation is incorrect. Hebrew, as in English, has distinct verbs for "kill" and "murder" and the one used in the ten commandments is clearly "murder".

Raycom,you don't seem to understand that VE is a choice between two different ways of dying; one with pain and anguish versus one with peace and dignity.

Where is the virtue in dying with pain and suffering if it does not bring about any improvement in human existence?

Look again at the photo of Chantal Sebire in the article by Ian Wood, and imagine the agony she must have been in for hours at a time. I've heard that the pain was like having a dentist drill teeth without any aneasthetic, and it went on for hours at a time. Furthermore, I understand that she was allergic to morphine so palliative care was far from sufficient. The last thing Chantal needed to consider was ethics; all she wanted was to stop the pain.

If you think that God wanted her to suffer like that, then you and your God are both heartless monsters, as was the President of France at the time who refused her plea for a merciful death.

I'm confident that the God I worship does not want us to suffer in such a way, and He has given humanity the means to prevent it!

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Everyone has their own idea about the nature of God, arrived at by interpreting the Bible in different ways. There have been many wars caused by differences of theological opinion - the very last thing that God would want!

If democracy was working properly, several states would already have VE. People like you are causing unnecessary suffering. Shame on you!

The current law is inconsistent. It is a crime to assist someone to perform an act (suicide) which itself is not a crime.

Why does it matter to you anyway, whether other people are allowed to get medical help to end horrific suffering? It won't affect you, so stop meddling in other people's affairs.

"So what you mean in effect is doctors assisting patients to commit suicide. That can never be ethical."

What would never be ethical would be requiring any or all doctors to assist patients.

The basis of medical practice interventions is informed patient consent and that should be available for voluntary euthanasia.

Of course it should be obvious that involuntary euthanasia must never be sanctioned.

[And I include in that statement my personal family experience of intensive palliation where the outcome was certain but not the timeline. As NOK I knew with certainty that the person in the bed (amongst other things an ex-missionary) would have begged for euthanasia if so able. The pain-free (not distress-free) eventual death was as dignified as could be hoped and the cost to the community of $200,000 is acknowledged. Thanks for that.]

Yuyitsu, suicide is only a 'sin' in the poisoned pens used by men who wrote and rewrote the bible.
That particular 'sin' has caused no end of angst for poor mentally ill (or not) Christians who want to end their own lives. It is a disgraceful human notion, and not something given to us by any God.

Doctors are required to strive to relieve suffering and not cause harm above all else.
I have no doubt that extreme pain, unrelieved vomiting or diarrhea, or nausea causes harm and suffering, so Doctors should be allowed to provide legal voluntary euthanasia if they wish.

Some already do anyway........

Dear Suse,

That suicide is a sin has nothing to do with the bible as the bible in fact does not condemn it. The reason it is a sin, is that it is usually carried with a selfish motive - otherwise it is not a sin (for example in the case of Tibetan monks who set themselves alight to protest the Chinese invasion).

<<Doctors should be allowed to provide legal voluntary euthanasia if they wish.>>

I am not in favour of making euthanasia legal, only of ceasing to make it illegal. Once no longer illegal, it doesn't matter whether it is carried by people who happen to be doctors or not.

It is a fact of life (no pun intended) that pain and suffering are part of human existence.

If Newspoll were to call a spade a spade, one wonders what the response would be to the question, “Thinking now about voluntary euthanasia, if a very ill patient asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to assist the patient to commit suicide?”

It is illogical to claim that the prescribing doctor is doing no harm, when it is premeditated killing of one human being by another, regardless of whether the patient ‘requested’ it.

Just as there is no dignity in suicide, there is no dignity in assisted suicide.

Raycom, there is even less dignity in lying on a bed unable to eat or drink, with unrelieved pain, diarrhea and vomiting.....as does happen in people with some digestive system cancers.

This happens more often than you think, and luckily not all doctors think like you and want to continue condemning some poor sods to a long, agonizing death.

If you don't want euthanasia for yourself, that's fine, but don't assume to decide such a thing for everyone else.

Who cares whether they do or they don't? More to the point, why should it matter if they do or don't? I thought this was a secular society and therefore it shouldn't matter a jot. Church and State should be separate when it comes to making Laws for all of us.

Congratulations on the article Ian Wood.

I find it curious that those most strongly against legalizing voluntary euthanasia are people who believe in a glorious heavenly afterlife. They seem more reluctant to go there than we non believers. Death is not to be feared, only the way one gets there.

Marshall Perron