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.