Banjo,

"marks" are commonly used to denote a quotation, in fact that's where they get their name from.

.

Literary licence, Is Mise ...

.

Nathan J I am with you completely. I am fast approaching stage three of MS (completely unable to walk etc) and am furious that people
are still debating euthanasia. It's been going on for years ... forever even, without legislation so why change things? I, personally have no desire to be killed by 'assisted suicide', IF I want it (suicide) I'll find a way and not implicate others. It's MY decision and being of sound mind and able to be rational (although at the moment I am very angry), I am able to make that decision. The very small minority that can't make that decision, are not going to be effected by an assisted suicide law. It's no fun living with progressive MS but it's MY MS and I will live with it. I won it, I'll wear it. My children know what I will accept when my end is getting closer and as long as I am 'comfortable' life will go on.

Life is an experience and my death will be a life experience for my children.

Banjo Paterson,

<<neither suicide nor euthanasia are “voluntary” acts>>

This is simple, because if someone did not have any feeling towards suicide or a medical condition or be in any position that would want themselves to undertake either activity, or a desire to do so, a person would not take either action in any form.

So if these two elements, that being euthanasia or suicide, become a spectrum in a person's life, where a person feels that such a need is required they will have:

1. With euthanasia, a person is in a position of feeling that a person should or must go through the process of euthanasia or face the possibility of abuse for those who provide no consent, like the elderly;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/rapid-rise-in-elderly-falling-foul--of-greedy-relatives-lawyers/news-story/8b360dd4fce1f1719ab7119a0c5d528e

and

2. With suicide, a person is in a position where their mindset is likely to be at a level to which suicide is to occur, where any movement against such movement is unlikely, except if someone else was to take some type of affirmative action, which is unlikely to be in place at the time of a suicide.

I still remember the time, a few years ago when I saw a picture of my local GP and story in my local newspaper which described the fact he had committed suicide. As a person with five medical conditions myself, the issue of life and death, is not something to be cheaply addressed or written off, by people such as Senator David Leyonhjelm (who to my knowledge has no medical qualifications), nor does it mean I am unsympathetic towards others.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

Thank you for your explanations but I am having difficulty understanding exactly what it is you are saying.

The link you provided to the article in theaustralian.com will not open for me as I do not subscribe to that newspaper.

However, I see from the wording of the link that it has to do with “ … rapid rise of elderly falling foul of greedy relatives lawyers/news story …”.

That provides an indication of what your first point is about.

Your second point seems to be that you are concerned that proper medical assistance for a calm, peaceful and painless death “may not be in place at the time of suicide”.

I’m sorry if I have not correctly understood you.

All I can say is that, if my interpretations are correct, then I share your concerns and agree that it is of paramount importance that every effort should be made to eliminate the risk of vulnerable people falling victim to the malevolent influence of ill-intentioned persons in their entourage.

Also, it is more than likely that many of those who see no solution to their problems, apart from ending their lives, may change their minds on receiving competent, on-going assistance from somebody who cares. Professional assistance, provided with delicacy and tact, is a necessary prerequisite - but should not be a barrier - to any decision on euthanasia.

The ill and suffering must, of course, continue to have full, unrestricted access to the best available professional palliative care at all times, irrespective of whether they are candidates for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

As for your second point, the sooner both become legal the better, as it will allow the 3 000+ people who commit suicide every year in Australia to have access to a calm, peaceful and painless death in a warm, cosy environment.

Today, they are left with no other choice but to have recourse, alone with their solitude and in a terrible state of despair, to the most barbaric, inhuman and expeditious methods in order to carry out their macabre enterprise.

.

Banjo Paterson,

<<As for your second point, the sooner both become legal the better, as it will allow the 3 000+ people who commit suicide every year in Australia to have access to a calm, peaceful and painless death in a warm, cosy environment.>>

That is exactly the problem. Too many people, not associated with medical practice, or have no experience in the field, are emotionally attracted to movements such as euthanasia or certain types of suicide. Such viewpoints are not based on facts, evidence or future predictions.

Warm, cosy environments are not what healthcare is for with medical conditions. It is simply a move towards reducing the impact of a medical condition on the individual.

One also has to take into consideration the needs of medical specialists, nurses, doctors and others who work within the medical sector.

For example, those who work in the sector are being to court by making a mistake for example. There are cases in Australia, where lawyers get involved (pro-bono) representing clients without thinking about the impacts on the wider population in terms of service provision. Families and patients affected also get taken in (from feelings of anger or regret) and the want of money. Money doesn't save or bring back lives - and then don't forget the immediate Coroner's inquests.

Each person also has very complex needs and requirements, re healthcare. I know having to go through seven years of medication trials to find alternative medications for Epilepsy, after finding a Epilepsy medication had given me a bone density condition, which I'm now going through a recovery process for. Now with five medical conditions, each evening I have to take around 10 medications before I go to bed (and when I get up) and every morning I cannot eat for 30 minutes, due to fasting.

So, suicide and euthanasia, simply don't provide answers to many health conditions or address future predictions, like legal action. That's why I don't accept David Leyonhjelm's argument, as it is simplistically based on the philosophy of the Liberal Democrats.