The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017: sending mixed messages on suicide > Comments

Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017: sending mixed messages on suicide : Comments

By Simon Kennedy, published 19/10/2017

It doesn’t require doctors to check for an undiagnosed mental health issue; only a pre-diagnosed one.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Stop this ugly monopoly of medical doctors over life and death!

Also, while people ought not to commit suicide for selfish reasons and will never benefit from it in the long run, the author denies the fact that some lives ARE less valuable than others.

The freedom to live cannot be separated from the freedom to die - otherwise it is a farce and not a freedom at all.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 19 October 2017 8:45:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some more necessary biographical details on Simon.
He contributes to this site: http://calvinistinternational.com

Some time ago via an essay featured in Quadrant he defended this charming outfit, which is classified as a "hate group", and rightfully so. http://www.adflegal.org
That defence was written as a criticism of an article in the SMH criticizing Tony Abbott for giving a speech to this group of "religious" zealots while in the USA.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 19 October 2017 9:19:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Daffy,

It is good to learn that the author supports good causes, such as freedom of religion. Surely you would also be extremely troubled, perhaps even want to commit suicide, had your own ability to keep to your religious practices been compromised.

Nevertheless, it is disturbing that at the same time he wants to thwart other people's freedom.

You can't be good unless you are also allowed to be bad - yet choose otherwise!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 19 October 2017 10:22:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since the Government is involved, it can only go badly, sooner or later. Beware, another weet bix packet appears on the horizon...
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:13:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It never fails to amaze me that society is so concerned with the high number of suicides and the apparent ease of it that the government spends millions trying to prevent it, yet at the same time finds it necessary to make laws to enable it for a few people.
Does no one see the irony in that?
Posted by Big Nana, Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:36:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The lady/several thousand folk, with the inoperable, death sentence caners, might be cured even only hours from death door, if the medical profession could readily get its hands on adequate supplies of bismuth 213!

The fact that we can't, is down to the fact, we're addicted to more expensive coal fired power and thus have officially ruled out. Cheaper, safer, cleaner, molten salt, thorium power. As nuclear energy, and the best source of maximised bismuth 213 production!

Tony Abbott wants a great big fight with Labor over energy and the price of affordable reliable power! And like the diabolically dumb dunces they are they've taken the bait, hook, line and sinker! Like the proverbial junk yard dog latching on to a big juicy bone!

When instead they could and should throw him and the right wing conservatives completely off balance by just reversing Labor's asinine and ill-informed policy on nuclear power.

Back on topic.

Believing falsehoods doesn't make them true any more than it makes an ovoid world flat!

The fact that someone wants to terminate their life? Shouldn't mean they ought to have official permission? Least not before thorough and comprehensive medical examination to ensure, they are of sound mind and able to make competent decisions!

Where there's a will there's always a relative! And perhaps a vested interest in an accelerated financial outcome?

If this goes through? The start of a slippery slop that one day, not too far ahead in time? Children might be able to ask for and get, medically assisted and facilitated suicide? And not without international precedent.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 19 October 2017 3:21:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is the Alliance Defending "Freedom" really just about that, or is a very powerful vector for a much more all-compassing sinister project to turn the USA into a theocratic state?
This long essay provides some very useful context for understanding its existence and mission.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

It is also very much an integral part of the phenomenon described by Chris Hedges in his prophetic book American Fascists - The Christian Right and Its War Against America
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 19 October 2017 4:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes big Nana, and big-time!
Cheers, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 19 October 2017 4:31:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one needs to ask a doctor to assist them end their life, when they have the superman option and can jump off a tall building in a single bound!

Or if too messy?

Then, row, row your boat merrily, merrily out to sea, beyond the blue horizon? Then abandon it when a full tide turns when you're well past your return swim limit!

To ensure you achieve your life ending goal and in a gone fishing, "accidental" way that allows the insurance to pay the beneficiaries and replace the boat!?

And so considerate as to completely spare them your funeral costs!

I mean you'd need a really compelling reason?

Like say, having to give up unaffordable smoking? Or your favourite tipple? And compelling, life no longer worth living reason, without the favourite addiction?

And a true nightmare scenario that make any sane person want to take a running jump off a very high cliff?

Always providing it was high enough to allow one sufficient time to down a couple of bottles of single malt on the way down?

What is it about this issue that is invariably trotted out, when the polls are going badly!?

A distraction from really important stuff like affordable housing and social justice?

Some of the more credible excuses come from old folk, their voices or rights no longer heard or tolerated and made to feel completely useless with nothing more to contribute? Years worth of validated research tossed, without examination?

And could be offered a pill in preference to being hidden away in some beautifully presented hell hole, euphemistically referred to as, residential aged care?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 19 October 2017 5:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sucide is never an answer. It should not be supported in any legal way or from any industry. Medical included.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 19 October 2017 5:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Difficult

I've cancer and sometimes lots of pain - and I mean real pain - I'm flat on my back and can't even get to the kitchen for a knife ... yet alone walk to a cliff to jump over. I'm told the pain will get worse, when is unknown, but sometime soon ... weeks, months? Depressed, no not really. I've had a good life and I'm well looked after by family and government sponsored palliative care. Unhappy, sure but I'm drinking better wine, drinking less and enjoying it more. Would I 'take my own life'? Yes, when the pain is impossible, otherwise no. I'm still searching for a reliable 'Lonely Planet' guide for the next journey, without it the risks are too high. As I get nearer the exit the journey's outlines get clearer and the risk will eventually be worth taking in a miasma of pain. But how?

But suicide is not the same as a personal a 'when to end it life decision' brought on by pain. It is a possession, a strange thing. I've had it before in my life, it came from outside me. I do wonder if it was brought on by DDT poisoning or a ghost. If a ghost it all becomes a religious issue. And if chemical a medical issue.

Glad I don't need to cast a vote on this one
Posted by don't worry, Thursday, 19 October 2017 7:31:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I support euthanasia, I agree with the author that depression that results from having to deal with a terminal illness needs to be treated first.
Treat the depression, then discuss the patient's wishes.
The patient needs to be fully assessed by 1. their own doctor, 2. their specialist (e.g. oncologist) 3. a psychiater and preferably also 4. a commission that overlooks all three.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 19 October 2017 9:07:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I presume the author knows what safeguards are already in the bill which is before parliament. If he doesn't then he should keep his ideas to himself and keep out of the way of those of sound mind who might wish to avail themselves of its provisions. Palliative care, even properly administered can only do so much and those who wish to end their suffering should be allowed to do so in the most humane manner.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 19 October 2017 10:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't worry: Check with your oncologist and ask him or her, what does he/her know about bismuth 213.

I've seen before and after scans and a liver with three tumours and 66 hour later, completely clear. Following a single treatment with bismuth 213.

And other examples, like death sentence pancreatic cancer.

We could put hundreds or thousands into remission and give them back their lives with bismuth 213.

Bismuth 213 is an alpha particle isotope made in a nuclear reactor, and more/most easily obtained from an operational, molten salt, liquid fuel, thorium reactor.

Bismuth 213 is attached to an anti body, which searchs for and attacks the cancer cells. Leukaemia and some inoperable cancers, none nastier than inoperable brain cancer.

Where the average life span is 14 moths from diagnosis to death! With 98% not surviving past 5 years!

You'd think such a person, still with all their marbles, would leave no stone upturned to seek a viable proven cure, or best chance option?

Only to be confronted by official indifference and politicians seemingly in the fossil fuel sector's voluminous pockets.

And clearly suffering from a very severe case of Sargent Schultz's Syndrome when it comes to miracle cure, nuclear medicine? Not a question of can't, but one,I believe, of won't?

If you get a chance to partake of a bismuth 213 trial? Suggest you ask for and begin with T cell immune system treatment as a prelude!

Cheers and absolutely best of luck!

And may you have a sympathetic doctor who still has an open mind and open ears!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:28:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Simon (the author),

.

I fully subscribe to Yuyutsu’s words of wisdom :

« The freedom to live cannot be separated from the freedom to die - otherwise it is a farce and not a freedom at all »

Life and death are two sides of the same coin. There can be no life without death and no death without life. If life is a fundamental human right, then death is too.

If the good life we want is freedom to do as we please, limited only by the freedom of all others and whatever other restrictions we voluntarily consent to in the common interest, then that should be made law through the democratic process, as should the fundamental, and inalienable right to life. The same goes for death. If the “good death” we want is a peaceful and painless death, preferably in a warm, cosy environment, then that too should be made law and apply throughout the nation, as should the fundamental and inalienable right to death.

The State alone, exercising the will of the sovereign people, should be empowered to prevent us from living or dying, against our will, in the common interest, if such is the decision of a democratically constituted court of justice and only after full exhaustion of all means of recourse available to defendants within the judiciary process.

In the instance where death is the conclusion of a deliberate, carefully reasoned decision, either on the part of the person concerned himself or on the part of a court of justice, that decision should be implemented with a maximum of humanity and as least pain, stress and suffering as modern science can allow. The best possible conditions of euthanasia (from the Greek eu, “good” and thanatos, “death”) should be provided in all instances, irrespective of whether the decision to terminate life is taken by the person himself or by a court of justice.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

Euthanasia of convicted criminals must necessarily be carried out in conditions of utmost security, both for themselves and others. They should also receive appropriate psychological assistance and sedation where necessary in order to prepare them for an end of life which most would probably have difficulty accepting.

It will be a long time before mentalities change in order for justice to be seen simply as the rightful enforcement of the terms and conditions of the social contract to which we all voluntarily subscribe through the democratic process, and not just as some cruel form of punishment.

Capital punishment, as it continues to be carried-out, is often a sordid, degrading, humiliating, stressing, painful and inhumane process. This form of capital punishment should be totally abolished, world-wide, without the slightest shadow of a doubt.

Criminal court decisions of legal euthanasia should be limited to crimes such as child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism, and premeditated murder which is carefully planned and executed.

For those who have done no wrong, are beyond reproach and simply wish to end their lives in a calm, peaceful and orderly manner, access to the most modern, humane, scientific state of the art methods of euthanasia should be facilitated. Naturally there is a need for a certain number of safeguards to protect the vulnerable from the malevolent influence of ill-intentioned persons in their entourage. Just as there should be psychological, medical and social assistance for those who are in need of them. 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 not.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

Euthanasia is not, however, a question for the medical profession to decide. Many applicants may be in good health and have excellent perspectives in terms of life expectancy. Poor health and unsupportable pain and suffering are not the only grounds for people wishing to end their lives. They may have other motives, perhaps of a purely personal nature, which they may not necessarily wish to reveal to others. Whatever their motives, their right to death is just as much a natural, moral and inalienable right as their right to life. It should also be a legal right.

Euthanasia is not something for religion or the medical profession to decide. The role of religion is to provide spiritual solace to those who require it and that of the medical profession to provide the most effective medical assistance possible. Euthanasia, or “good death”, has to be the personal decision of the individual exercising his free will without, or in spite of, any outside influence, or, in the case of those guilty of “atrocious” crimes, the collective decision of society, acting in the common interest.

It is the role of democracy to make this possible and that of justice to ensure that it is put into practice with full respect of the highest standards of integrity, diligence and professionalism.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 19 October 2017 11:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«I fully subscribe to Yuyutsu’s words of wisdom:»

I feel flattered, yet your expansion of my words is only partially in line with the spirit of what I said.

My main idea is, that only by being allowed and able to die, one can accrue the merit for choosing to live anyway, despite all pains.

At present, the wealthy can accumulate this merit, regardless of Australian legislation, because if they want they can simply buy a one-way ticket to Switzerland and be euthanased there for around $7000. The poor, however, cannot, nor prisoners (for me, imprisonment would be worse than death).

I find the idea disturbing that a government/state could kill people against their will - and even more disturbing that it could keep people alive by force. If we allowed people to be kept alive against their will "in the common interest", soon that would come down to enslaving talented people.

Let me relate a scene from the Mahabharata:
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
There was a heated discussion in the king's court regarding which of the two princes should become the crown-prince.

Suddenly some guards bursted in holding four prisoners and asked the king to do justice.

King: "Why now?"
Guards: "These people murdered a person in cold blood, please help"
King: "Well, since we are discussing the merits of these princes, let's hear their judgement".

Prince Duryodhana (vile and arrogant): "Did they admit their guilt?"
Guards: "Yes, your highness"
Duryodhana: "Then execute them all, why bother the busy court with such obvious matters"

Prince Yudhisthira (righteous): "What do these four people do in life?"
Guards: "One is a simpleton, one a merchant, one a warrior and one a Brahamin".
Yudhisthira: "The simpleton has a diminished capacity to understand what's right and what's wrong: imprison him for 4 years. The merchant knows better, so imprison him for 8 years. The warrior is supposed to protect and uphold society: imprison him for 16 years. Brahamins are holy people, thus outside our jurisdiction, so we cannot punish the fourth"
Accused Brahamin: "I am completely remorseful, thus I will immolate myself".
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 20 October 2017 11:43:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've commented before. I'm in pain - sometimes very bad - from cancer. Ok death would be a relief when the pain is bad. Other times it's Ok and as said, I'm drinking better wine (and less). As I am bed bound I can't even venture to the kitchen to get a knife! BUT I have NO desire to die yet. I want a 'Lonely Planet' guide to the next life. And as I approach the time for the next big journey in my existence things do get clearer about what is possibility going to occur. So at some point matching fear and pain will tip towards an exit strategy. As to killing 'bad' people because they broke some law. No I think very wrong. To take a common occurrence ...at the end of a war traitors become heroes. But I have come across people who are so aggressively, uncontrollably ugly and dangerous ,,, what does one do? They can be danger to anyone who comes near them. I would not make a decision - but others might.
Posted by don't worry, Friday, 20 October 2017 2:02:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a person who nursed the dying for years, I totally support the right to die. It is a fact that euthanasia has been happening in hospices and nursing homes all along. I have seen it. When my turn comes, if suffering an incurable and/or painful condition, I will decide when I have had enough. My life, my property.
Posted by HereNow, Friday, 20 October 2017 3:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for that clarification.

You are right in thinking that I fully agree with your initial statement (“The freedom to live cannot be separated from the freedom to die - otherwise it is a farce and not a freedom at all”), but not with your caveat (“… only by being allowed and able to die, one can accrue the merit for choosing to live anyway, despite all pains”).

In my experience, there are some “pains” that are so excruciating that they are unbearable, no matter how brave one may be. If they can be relieved for a time with drugs, that’s fine, but if they can’t, then our natural defences eventually make us feel like vomiting and plunge us into a coma … If there is no other issue, we may be lucky enough to escape into death – as a result of heart failure, brain stroke, etc.

I agree that most people probably “choose to live” as long as they can bear the pain, but I think we all have our limits, which is not a matter of choice. I can choose to run 100 meters in 9 seconds, but, unfortunately, I cannot. Where is the merit in choosing to run 100 meters in 9 seconds, if it is simply not possible ?

You note:

« I find the idea disturbing that a government/state could kill people against their will »

It is just as healthy to eliminate atrocious killers from society as it is to eliminate cancerous cells from a person’s body. There are 37.2 trillion cells in the human body. Oncologists can eliminate the cancerous cells to protect the life of the individual. States can eliminate all the cells of some individuals to protect society.

You are disturbed at the idea of the state eliminating atrocious killers “against their will”, but you say nothing about the innocent victims of child murder, serial killing, torture murder, rape murder, mass murder, terrorism, and premeditated murder, carefully planned and executed.

That is atrocious death ... not gentle euthanasia by the state !

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 21 October 2017 1:18:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Paterson. You say that suicide (by euthanasia) should be a right. Not just for the medically incurable and full of pain. I disagree completely. Suicide (by any means) is a perment solution to a tempory problem. The exception to that rule is an uncureable condition that causes great amounts of pain. Even then I would hope the struggle to be alive out shines the desire to end the pain through death.

A second thought is the hardship suicide puts the surviving community through. If looked at it from this way it isn't a victimless crime to choose to die. And it should never be allowed to choose suicide if the person's parents are still alive. Any time a parent has to see their children die (even if their children have grown up and are adults), it is a tragedy. It should never be supported as a choice while the parents are alive.

It should never be supported as a choice on any other grounds either.

How you live is a freedom with conditions to not commit crimes. To live or to die is not a choice of freedom. Unless we can choose to be born, the opposite to choose to die shouldn't be counted as an equal freedom. There is a great difference between the right to choose how to live, and the choice of whether to live or not.

Suicide is not a victimless choice.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 21 October 2017 2:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are some heartless B3rstards in this discussion.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 21 October 2017 8:28:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

According to the latest statistics, in 2016, about 8 people died by suicide in Australia every day. For every person who succeeded in committing suicide, there were 30 people who tried to commit suicide but failed. For many of them, it was not their first attempt.
For males, the highest suicide rate in 2016 was observed in the 85+ age group. Overall, there were three times more male suicides than female suicides. But according to hospital data, females are more likely to deliberately injure themselves than males.
.

You indicated that, you consider that :

« Suicide (by any means) is a permanent solution to a temporary problem »

That is probably true in some cases, Not_Now.Soon, but it is certainly not true of the large majority of suicides in Australia. For the 85+ age group, the only future perspectives being deteriorating health, poorer quality of life, reduced autonomy and nothing to look forward to … it is probably a good enough reason for them to wish to end their lives while they are still capable of doing so.

People over the age of 85 only have a “temporary” life left to live anyway, but they prefer to end it before it gets worse. They have already had enough. They prefer to take the “permanent solution” before it is too late.
.

I wonder how many of the nearly 3 000 people who will hang or poison themselves, cut their veins, throw themselves off buildings, or lie down on railway tracks this year (in 2017) would prefer to die peacefully, calmly and painlessly in a warm, cosy environment … if that were possible !

Unfortunately, it is not possible. The carnage will continue as long as euthanasia remains illegal in Australia.

Even the new law in Victoria, if it passes, will not help most of them have a more painless or peaceful death. Most of them are not terminally ill.

They will still have to hang or poison themselves, cut their veins, throw themselves off buildings, or lie down on railway tracks.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 21 October 2017 9:00:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<There are some heartless B3rstards in this discussion.>>

Yes, but only with this very selective discussion.

As a person with five medical conditions I did not ask for, I would hardly consider myself heartless.

I do though try to look at this matter from a rational perspective, being though a range of medical trials, treatments, surgeries, ambulance rides and long times in hospital. I am now in the position I am today and in a much better state, health wise. This took a lot of time to reach in regards to medical practice and advancement.

This process took over 10 years and some advancement is still continuing recovery wise. It could have been easier to simply have myself turned off, seeing my life being of limited value or look at myself from a cost of living perspective in terms of the taxpayer.

For example, my current medications are costing over $10,000 to subsidise.

<<Euthanasia is not, however, a question for the medical profession to decide.>>

Sorry, I'm not going to buy that.

Having high respect for the vast medical specialists I see and have benefited from which has come from their time in study, life experience, skills and knowledge, there is one important element to accept and that is:

A private relationship developed between a patient and a medical specialist, is just that, private. As a result, such a relationship should not be interfered with by any level of Government.

It's none of their business!
Posted by NathanJ, Saturday, 21 October 2017 9:26:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear NathanJ,

.

You wrote :

« Having high respect for the vast medical specialists I see and have benefited from which has come from their time in study, life experience, skills and knowledge, there is one important element to accept and that is:

A private relationship developed between a patient and a medical specialist, is just that, private. As a result, such a relationship should not be interfered with by any level of Government »
.

How right you are, NathanJ. I couldn’t agree with you more as regards the privacy of our relationship with medical staff and the non-interference of government at all levels.

However, on the very delicate question of who decides whether we should live or die, I consider that that is a personal decision which we should make ourselves, if we are able to do so. If not, it should be the person whom we designate to take such a decision for us (spouse, etc.). In my view, it is not something the medical profession, religion or the state should decide, as at present.

Naturally, there is nothing to prevent us, or the person whom we designate, from consulting these various instances, if we wish, but it should be our decision, not theirs, and we should not be submitted to any form of pressure whatsoever.

On this subject, I have noticed that some specialists recommend that patients establish a written declaration, in advance, of their wishes in the case of emergency, regarding life-sustaining treatment.

I think it is a good idea. It allows us to clearly state our personal views and to designate the person of our choice to decide for us, if it is not possible for us to take the decision ourselves.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 22 October 2017 2:07:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David.

[There are some heartless B3rstards in this discussion.]

Not sure who your meaning so I'll defend my stance too. I read somewhere that suicide incidents seem to come and go, but when they come they've been noticed to come in groups instead of just individual instances. From this observation (sorry I wish Ihad the article) it was theorized that the group of suicides are linked to the first person who killed themself. The remorse of their loss spreading until someone who knew that person also kills them self. This then continues the effect on others who knew the second person as well, which in a way spreads like a plague. In my opinion those hardest hit from sucide would be parents, siblings, and spouses. (Teens and young adults are susceptible to the strong emotions after a sucide.)

It is from this (and from knowing some people who later ended their lives), that I am against both suicide and empowering suicide with resources to assist it.

To Banjo Paterson. If you have the reference handy I'd like to see where you got your figures. I was under the impression that suicide was more common among teens and young adults then any other age group. And that frequent places of suicide are from jumping off tall bridges.

If those figures are right though that 8 die a day from suicide, and thirty more attempt it unsussfully, then wouldn't it be a horrible thing to empower that resolution with a painless way to die. Possibly 38 people a day. (Possibly more if it's a free choice for anyone. For those who might want to but don't attempt it). If saying no to suicide is heartless, then so be it. Suicide is a disease.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 22 October 2017 4:55:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//If you have the reference handy I'd like to see where you got your figures.//

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2016~Main%20Features~Intentional%20self-harm:%20key%20characteristics~7

//I was under the impression that suicide was more common among teens and young adults then any other age group.//

Nope, and in fact if you have a look at the stats you'll see that for males, the 15-19 year age group had the second lowest age-specific rate (third lowest rate for females in that age group).

//then wouldn't it be a horrible thing to empower that resolution with a painless way to die.//

No, it would be the decent and compassionate thing to do. Certainly a damn sight more compassionate than condemning than to hang by the neck until dead, which is the most common method of suicide by a considerable margin.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2013~Main%20Features~Method%20of%20Suicide~10011

And it's a grisly business: in countries where they still execute people by hanging, or in days gone past, a hangman does/did the deed. It's a tricky business, hanging somebody properly: the intended effect is to snap the neck and sever the spinal column, thus producing a relatively painless death. Too much rope, and they'll fall too far and stop with too much force... and the head pops off. But it's even worse if you don't use enough rope: the drop is too short, there isn't enough force to snap the neck, and they choke to death, horribly, slowly and painfully. Not a nice way to go.

Unfortunately, the way that most suicides end up going: they're not hangmen, and even if they did know how to calculate rope lengths and tie a proper noose, they don't have the height of proper gallows to allow for sufficient drop. So they choke to death hanging from some ceiling fixture, and leave their corpse for their loved ones to find and clean up.

And you think that's worse than painless death under proper medical supervision? God save us from Christian morality.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 22 October 2017 9:11:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«In my experience, there are some “pains” that are so excruciating that they are unbearable»

They are unbearable because one failed to prepare for them in advance.
The preparation involves disassociating oneself from one's body: first mentally, then emotionally and finally physically. Once these are exercised, your body may pain, but you are not in pain.

Ultimately, pain is only a sensation which occurs when electro-chemical current runs through certain nerves. So long as you hope to derive pleasure from bodily sensations, you will also experience pain and frustration when your bodily sensations fail to match your expectations.

Once prepared, neither drugs nor suicide will be necessary. Yogis are known to be able to withstand situations with a smile that others
consider unbearable and beyond.

«You are disturbed at the idea of the state eliminating atrocious killers “against their will”, but you say nothing about the innocent victims of child murder...»

Yes, for three reasons:
1. If the state is democratic, then it does so in my name - and I would not kill anyone for any reason (I might feel like it, but I won't act on it). In contrast, I have never empowered the child-murderer to do so in my name, so I bear no responsibility for their bad actions.
2. Since when do states know what's right and what's wrong (and what's wronger and wrongest)? Indeed one might have killed someone, but who is to measure atrociousness? Wasn't Robin Hood a serial murderer?
3. Innocent people might also be convicted, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anyway, my original point was that I am disturbed EVEN MORE when government forces people to remain alive against their will.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 22 October 2017 10:36:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<I couldn’t agree with you more as regards the privacy of our relationship with medical staff and the non-interference of government at all levels.>>

Yes and that's why, the Victorian Government shouldn't be bringing in legislation regarding Euthanasia.

<<However, on the very delicate question of who decides whether we should live or die, I consider that that is a personal decision which we should make ourselves, if we are able to do so. If not, it should be the person whom we designate to take such a decision for us (spouse, etc.)>>

Then let your spouse undertake that if you have one and if they agree.

<< In my view, it (euthanasia) is not something the medical profession, religion or the state should decide, as at present.

This is why, legislation shouldn't be put before parliament. This is why doctors shouldn't be involved in Euthanasia. Doctors can be put in a position having to face State imposed Coroners enquiries and legal action.

<<On this subject, I have noticed that some specialists recommend that patients establish a written declaration, in advance, of their wishes in the case of emergency, regarding life-sustaining treatment.>>

Life sustaining treatment should always be something to try and reach. If obtained, this enables a doctor-patient relationship to occur, so patient advice can be provided. To simply turn people off is irresponsible, for reasons, I've said before. Finally, I fully support the comments from former Prime Minister Paul Keating who says:

"What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead. In both practical and moral terms, it is misleading to think allowing people to terminate their life is without consequence for the entire society. This claim exposes the bald utopianism of the project - the advocates support a bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor".

Simply, any aims or claims protection will occur every time with Euthanasia are not realistic.
Posted by NathanJ, Sunday, 22 October 2017 11:30:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You ask :

« If you have the reference handy I'd like to see where you got your figures »

I see that Toni Lavis has provided the reference. Here is a brief summary :

« For males: The highest age-specific suicide rate in 2016 was observed in the 85+ age group (34.0 per 100,000) with 61 deaths. This rate was considerably higher than the age-specific suicide rate observed in all other age groups, with the next highest age-specific suicide rates being in the 30-34, 40-44 and 35-39 year age groups (27.5, 27.2 and 24.8 per 100,000 respectively). Those of younger age were associated with the lowest age-specific rates (0-14 year age group: 0.4per 100,000; 15-19 year age group: 13.4 per 100,000) » :

http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats
.

You then ask :

« wouldn't it be a horrible thing to empower that resolution with a painless way to die »

Tony responded to that question too. I should add that there is no evidence indicating that legalising euthanasia produces “horrible” results.

This is what Andrew McGee, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, wrote in an article published in “The Conversation” dated 3 mars 2017 :

« According to a peer-reviewed paper published last year in the respected journal JAMA:

Between 0.3% to 4.6% of all deaths are reported as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in jurisdictions where they are legal. The frequency of these deaths increased after legalization … Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are increasingly being legalized, remain relatively rare, and primarily involve patients with cancer. Existing data do not indicate widespread abuse of these practices.

The authors of that paper said that 35,598 people died in Oregon in 2015. Of these deaths, 132, or 0.39%, were reported as physician-assisted suicides. The same paper said that in Washington in 2015 there were 166 reported cases of physician-assisted suicide (equating to 0.32% of all deaths in Washington in that year).

Interestingly, the same paper noted that US data show that:

pain is not the main motivation for PAS (physician-assisted suicide)… The dominant motives

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 23 October 2017 2:43:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

are loss of autonomy and dignity and being less able to enjoy life’s activities.

The authors said that in officially reported Belgian cases, pain was the reason for euthanasia in about half of cases. Loss of dignity is mentioned as a reason for 61% of cases in the Netherlands and 52% in Belgium ».

Here is the article :

http://theconversation.com/in-places-where-its-legal-how-many-people-are-ending-their-lives-using-euthanasia-73755

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Yogis are known to be able to withstand situations with a smile that others consider unbearable and beyond »

A yogi is a person who has spent many years practising the philosophy of yoga, and is considered to have reached an advanced spiritual state.

I doubt that that is the cas of most Australians, Yuyutsu. It’s probably not the case of most Hindus either !
.

Also, unfortunately, I do not see the pertinence of the three “reasons” you indicate as justification for « saying nothing about the innocent victims of child murder (and other atrocious crimes) », whilst, at the same time, you say you are « disturbed at the idea of the state eliminating atrocious killers “against their will” ».
.

You also wrote :

« If the state is democratic, then it does so in my name … »

An important principle in democracy is "majority rule with minority rights", according to which public policy is determined by a majority of citizens, but the majority may not rightfully use its power to deprive minority groups of their rights.

In order to preserve minority rights, a democracy must make it possible for the minority to become the majority though elections. If the majority impedes the minority's capacity to change the status quo by restricting freedom of speech, assembly, association and petition, then the democracy is in danger of becoming a dictatorship.

The Bill of Rights Institute, a US not-for-profit organisation, states that citizens can promote minority rights in their everyday life by practicing the civic virtues of respect and consideration.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 23 October 2017 2:47:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Toni Lavis. Thankyou for supplying the link to the data. However with regard to your comment your still wrong.

If you read the article with the stats, it explains the numbers. First suicide rates within the age group compaired to that age group as a whole. Then second suicide rates of an age group compaired to suicide rates as a whole.

"The age-specific death rate is highest among males 85 years and over, but it should be noted that the number of suicides in this age group accounted for 0.2% of all male intentional self harm deaths in 2016."

Surprised? Don't be. There are less 85+ year olds then there are 15-19 year olds.

"Excluding males aged 85 years and over, the age-specific deaths rates were the highest in males 30-34 and 40-44 years of age. Suicide accounted for 33.2% of all male deaths among those 30-34 years of age and 17.0% of all male deaths among those 40-44 years of age. The age-specific suicide rate for males was lowest among those 15-19 years of age (13.4 deaths per 100,000 males), yet suicide accounted for 35.7% of all deaths in that age group."

Those who are 85+ have reasons to want to die. Aliments in their health. Loss of peers, friends, siblings. Some even have little contact with their kids. The sad reality is that if they are alone there is more reflecting on how alone they ready are or how great their pains are. The sad reality is that if they wish to pass on it's likely because we don't show that we care they have a special place in our lives (instead of feeling like a burden or left behind). It is our LACK of compassion to not spend time and care for our elders. It's not more compassion to help them kill themselves.

This is true for 85+ group, it is also true for the other age groups as well. Our lack of being there for them is the problem, not how to let them die painlessly. Being there is compassion. Helping them die is not.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 23 October 2017 3:09:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Paterson.

Thankyou too for the link to stats on suicide. It provided the data that I really wanted. Not just the rates per 100,000, or other percentages compaired to other data. It gave the amount of deaths by suicide per age group.

Without going into a rate per population or a different percentage. The actual numbers of who could be affected if it became legal (for everyone) to have doctors assist in suicide shows that the age group that would be most affected are 30-34 year old men with 246 deaths from suicide in 2016. Still over 200 deaths in 2016 the next most affected groups are 40-44 rear old men and 20-24 year old men.

I'm sorry I did not address your points unti now. But I didn't see them until after I finished my reply to Toni.

[Interestingly, the same paper noted that US data show that:

pain is not the main motivation for PAS (physician-assisted suicide)… The dominant motives are loss of autonomy and dignity and being less able to enjoy life’s activities.]

Good to know. Thank you. From what I understand of the law in Australia. The rule is to let it be a limited allowance to assisted suicide. Only in cases of cancer or death being so near and high levels of pain. And though I still disagree with suicide as a general rule. I disagree with this ruling less then I would to allow suicide be available to everyone. In general, I think suicide is a sign of our society failing it's people. (Not the government, the society. The people failing those who are in desperation.)

Thankyou again for the data, and your points to consider.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 23 October 2017 4:18:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Thankyou for supplying the link to the data. However with regard to your comment your still wrong. However with regard to your comment your still wrong.//

No, I'm not. I merely reported the statistics, pretty much verbatim as supplied by the ABS.

//Our lack of being there for them is the problem, not how to let them die painlessly. Being there is compassion.//

Nope, that's quackery. You can't cure terminal illness with compassion. In fact, you can't cure terminal illness at all. That's why they call it terminal illness.

If somebody is going to die anyway, is it really compassionate to force them to undergo needless agony before they die (even if you visit them everyday to tell them how much you love them)? Because that sounds more like torture... torture is illegal and very, very immoral.

It seems to me that you're more concerned with your own interests than those of the patient - patting yourself on the back for what good little boy you are, supporting people through unbearable agonies like Mother Theresa or Florence Nightingale - rather than what many victims of terminal illness feel is in their best interests ie. ending the suffering sooner rather than later. Do you not think that's a tad selfish?

And who gave you the right to decide for them?

//The actual numbers of who could be affected if it became legal (for everyone) to have doctors assist in suicide shows that the age group that would be most affected are 30-34 year old men with 246 deaths from suicide in 2016//

Terminal illness is fairly rare amongst 30-34 year old men. The most common terminal illness is cancer, and age plays a large role in your likelihood of developing cancer.

Deaths from suicide in younger age brackets are more likely to be due to mental illness (schizophrenia is the most likely to result in suicide, followed by depression). No Australian euthanasia law is going to allow euthanasia for people whose only afflictions are mental.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 23 October 2017 7:23:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear NathanJ,

.

I wrote :

« I couldn’t agree with you more as regards the privacy of our relationship with medical staff and the non-interference of government at all levels ». And you replied :

« Yes and that's why, the Victorian Government shouldn't be bringing in legislation regarding Euthanasia »
.

Unfortunately, NathanJ, the Victorian Government, like every other state and territory in Australia, has already brought in legislation in terms of its statutory and common law for criminal liability in respect of active volontary euthanasia.

That is precisely the problem. As you wrote in your previous post :

« It's none of their business ! ».

We are now faced with the delicate task of modifying the law in order to restore our freedom so that we can make our own choices, without the State, religion, the medical profession, or anybody else, dictating to us what we can and can’t do with our own lives.

It is equally important that the medical staff should be free to exercise their profession without the constant threat of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads for assisting their patients to a calm, painless and peaceful death, in the best possible conditions.
.

You also wrote :

« any aims or claims protection will occur every time with Euthanasia are not realistic »

This is the principal argument put forward by religion, the Catholic authorities in particular, against the proposed Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill in Victoria.

However, no cases of abuse have veen reported to date in any of the countries where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal and has been practised for several years. This includes :

Euthanasia in the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Canada, and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Montana, Washington DC, and California.

Naturally, the risk of abuse cannot be excluded in respect of vulnerable people, no matter how they die, whether it be as a result of euthanasia or assisted suicide, or not.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 23 October 2017 7:50:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Unfortunately, NathanJ, the Victorian Government, like every other state and territory in Australia, has already brought in legislation in terms of its statutory and common law for criminal liability in respect of active voluntary euthanasia.>>

Doctors were already in advance of legislation and in many other areas of health provision. So legislation in regards to health was nothing more of tokenism. Politicians only bring in legislation to justify their position.

One also has to look at this situation and see the media attention the Victorian Premier has received. That is what he wants. One also has to hear or read some of the spurious comments put out by Victorian Health Minister Jill Hennessy, and these were of course going to grab headlines. But as one knows any publicity is good publicity.

Most doctors are responsible. They have no intention of seeing negative outcomes for their patients, so Government involvement has only needed to be minimalist, compared to other parts of society. So health provision in terms of government has really on relied on simple elements like:

1. Education funding;
2. Medicare rebates;
3. Medication subsidies;
4. Hospital funding;
5. Some other general health related matters, like research.

<<You also wrote: (in regards to myself)

« any aims or claims protection will occur every time with Euthanasia are not realistic »

This is the principal argument put forward by religion, the Catholic authorities in particular, against the proposed Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill in Victoria.>>

This matter is not simply a religious position. Concerns have been put by former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating. So various elements of society are questioning the Victorian legislation on assisted dying.

Finally, one also needs to consider the "Hippocratic Oath" regarding the above. Although written in previous times, its principles are held deeply by many. It is there to "treat the sick to the best of one's ability, preserve patient privacy and teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation".

That is beyond Government and should be respected as much as possible. A doctor can save my life, a politician and a parliament cannot.
Posted by NathanJ, Monday, 23 October 2017 3:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavi. Are you for assisted suicide only for the terminally ill? That's a new development. I thought it was for anyone who wanted to hang themselves. Be compassionate and make death easier for them. Honestly man if you could just stick by your own lies before shedding them for a new one. A farce of compassion if you ask me.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 23 October 2017 4:53:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«A yogi is a person who has spent many years practising the philosophy of yoga, and is considered to have reached an advanced spiritual state.

I doubt that that is the cas of most Australians, Yuyutsu. It’s probably not the case of most Hindus either !»

I totally agree, and this is why, when in severe physical pain, Yogis will accrue the merit for not taking medications and not committing suicide - while others who have not practised to dissociate themselves from their bodies, will accrue the demerit for committing suicide (with or without assistance).

The state has no right to prohibit assisted killing, but this doesn't mean that it is not sinful or that one could get away with it in the long run.

«An important principle in democracy is...»

You said many correct things about democracy, but I think that you missed my point, so let me reiterate:

If we lived in a dictatorship and the king decreed that such-and-such criminals must be killed, then I would not be personally killing these criminals (it would be the king and his henchmen who do it).

However, in a democracy, I am supposed to have some influence, so if a democracy decides to kill certain people (criminals or otherwise), then I would also be partially responsible - and personally, I am NOT willing to be a killer.

In a way, some aspects of living under a dictatorship are easier because then I am not responsible for what the state does. We do however live in a [semblance of] democracy, thus it becomes my duty to protest and to vote against potential killers.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 23 October 2017 6:08:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I thought it was for anyone who wanted to hang themselves.//

Where did I say that?

Still, if attacking strawmen makes you happy then be my guest.

//Honestly man if you could just stick by your own lies before shedding them for a new one.//

Sounding a bit triggered there, snowflake.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 23 October 2017 7:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear NathanJ,

.

Thanks for your explanations but I still consider that governments should never have become involved in the private lives of individuals. The only reason they did was because of the influence of religion and that can be traced back to the dawn of time.

So far as the monotheistic religions are concerned, it can be traced back to the year 312 when the Roman Emperor, Constantine, had a vision and ordered his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and won the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a bridge over the Tiber river.

Constantine’s Nicene Christianity became the state church of the whole of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion. That was the beginning of the pact between today’s monotheistic religions and the state, of : “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

Our head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, is also the head of the Anglican Church. Australia only ceased being a colony of the UK officially with the passing of the Australia Act 1986 (Aus.) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, to come into effect simultaneously.

Our common law legislation is based on that of Westminster which has been fashioned and developed under the influence of the state religion of the UK – despite the fact that, unlike the UK, Australia does not have a state religion.

Abbott and Keating, whom you mention, express Roman Catholic views on euthanasia and assisted suicide, although Keating’s position appears somewhat ambivalent :

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/22/paul-keating-accused-of-hypocrisy-assisted-dying-euthanasia-marshall-perron
.

The role of the State should be limited to the public - not the private – sphere, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “Right to respect for private and family life” :

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Convention_ENG.pdf
.

Hippocratic Oath was designed to protect the patients of medical practitioners and in their best interests (the patients’). That’s their choice. It should not be imposed on them.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 23 October 2017 9:26:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis.

[Where did I say that?]

5th page in this topic. 4th responses in the page. Your first response to the topic! You've only had three including your last one.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19362&page=5

[No, it would be the decent and compassionate thing to do. Certainly a damn sight more compassionate than condemning than to hang by the neck until dead, which is the most common method of suicide by a considerable margin.]

Your too young to be losing your memory kid.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 2:03:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuytsu,

.

You wrote :

« The state has no right to prohibit assisted killing, but this doesn't mean that it is not sinful or that one could get away with it in the long run »

I guess that what you really mean, Yuyutsu, is “assisted killing of oneself”. In other words, “assisted suicide”.

If you really mean what you wrote (assisted killing), then the state not only has the right to prohibit it, it has the bounden duty to prohibit it. In other words, if I suggested that I might assist A to kill B, then it would be the duty of the state to forbid me to do so.

Also, as “sin” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as : “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law”, I consider that there is no such thing as “sin” because there is no such thing as “divinity” or “divine law”.

I’m sure you didn’t think I would let you get away with that one, Yuyutsu !
.

You then remarked :

« You said many correct things about democracy, but I think that you missed my point … »

I guessed you were referring to your moral and legal responsibility to the “atrocious killers” and their “innocent victims” - which is why I tried to clarify those responsibilities from the point of view of somebody who did not identify with the majority - which I imagined to be your case.

A democratically-elected government always acts “in the name of the majority”, but its acts engage the whole of the country, including the minority. The only way the minority can prevent this, is to overthrow the government or wait for the next election in the hope that it will become the new majority. Failing that, the only other solution is to cancel citizenship and leave the country.

However, the three “reasons” you indicated in your previous post seemed impertinent to me because they were totally lacking in humanity for the innocent victims, irrespective of any question of responsibility.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 3:07:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//No, it would be the decent and compassionate thing to do. Certainly a damn sight more compassionate than condemning than to hang by the neck until dead, which is the most common method of suicide by a considerable margin.//

Correct. But I've never suggested allowing euthanasia for people who's only afflictions are mental illnesses. No doubt if I think about it some more I can think of other categories of patient for whom it would not be appropriate. But one is sufficient to demonstrate that you're just making crap up because you have no sound rebuttals to the arguments I have made, so you're trying to rebut ones I haven't made instead.

Do you even debate, bro?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 4:23:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Your too young to be losing your memory kid.//

I'm middle-aged and my memory is fine. You're too thick to be gaslighting, snowflake.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 4:32:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«I guess that what you really mean, Yuyutsu, is “assisted killing of oneself”. In other words, “assisted suicide”.»

Yes, sorry for the confusion.

Now considering your reply, if A asks you for assistance in killing B AND B asked A to kill him/herself, then this should be legal - still sinful, but it is not for the state to enforce morality or religion.

«I’m sure you didn’t think I would let you get away with that one, Yuyutsu !»

The Oxford's definition is sloppy. The word 'sin' comes from archery: "to miss the mark". Merriam-Webster offers 4 meanings, including "a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God". See a fuller explanation in http://www.allaboutgod.com/what-is-sin.htm

«which is why I tried to clarify those responsibilities from the point of view of somebody who did not identify with the majority - which I imagined to be your case.»

I don't consider it a good idea to identify with anything, including majority or minority.

The only problem with majorities, is the arbitrary nature of voting among a group of people that you never freely elected to associate yourself with. If you freely join an association whose constitution calls for majority-based voting, then there's nothing wrong with a majority rule. As it currently stands, however, most people never freely agreed to associate themselves with a state, but suppose even if only ONE(1) person did not agree to join, no state has a right to expel them from their land. Realistically, it is very unlikely for too many people to agree to associate themselves with a state, thus states need to be much smaller.

«However, the three “reasons” you indicated in your previous post seemed impertinent to me because they were totally lacking in humanity for the innocent victims»

I have written in my will, that should I be murdered, I forgive the murderer and ask that they not be convicted or jailed on my behalf.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 7:44:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

[I'm middle-aged and my memory is fine. You're too thick to be gaslighting, snowflake.]

Tell you what. When you act like an adult I'll treat you like one. But if calling you a kid is distracting then I suggest you grow up and give up your childish tendiancies in name calling. As long as you do it, all I can see is a teenager trying to look smart by calling his debate opponents fools in one form or another. It's really a good sence of aging someone, because more mature adults do better then this.

As long as you act like a kid (expecially online), then you are a kid.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 2:41:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuytsu,

.

You wrote :

« Realistically, it is very unlikely for too many people to agree to associate themselves with a state, thus states need to be much smaller »

Australia is administered at four levels : municipalities, regions, states and nation. It seems to me that this accommodates for the various specificities of the population to be taken into account at the very local level, broadening-out, in three distinct stages - four, if we take into account our international alliances - for greater solidarity on the regional, state, national and international scene.

We vote at all levels, except at the international level where we authorise the representatives we elected to our state and national parliaments to vote on our behalf.

In my view, we must recognize and accept our differences; it is these differences that make our culture so rich and our nation strong.
.

I wrote :

« However, the three “reasons” you indicated in your previous post seemed impertinent to me because they were totally lacking in humanity for the innocent victims »

And you replied :

« I have written in my will, that should I be murdered, I forgive the murderer and ask that they not be convicted or jailed on my behalf »

If, in fact, you were murdered, the police would probably interpret that to mean that you knew someone wanted to kill you and that you knew who it was – someone close to you whom you wanted to protect in order to prevent him or her - perhaps your wife or one of your children - from being prosecuted for murder.

In any event, under Australian law, the Crown Prosecutor has the sole authority to decide if somebody should be tried for murder, strictly on the basis of the evidence – irrespective of what you may have written in your will. Murder is a crime against the state and it is the duty of the state to find the murderer and bring him or her to court.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 3:16:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

Might I add that, from a purely moral point of view, I, personally consider that forgiving your “murderer” is quite commendable, but requesting that he or she should not be “convicted or jailed” is not at all commendable – on the contrary, it is totally irresponsible.

From my point of view, we should all assume full responsibility for our acts and be prepared to accept the consequences – unless, of course, we are mentally impaired. The least we can do for our family and friends, and the society in which we live, is to do whatever we can to avoid them being murdered too.

It is totally irresponsible to request that the murderer continue to remain free in order to murder whomever he likes without the slightest risk of being apprehended.

I cannot understand how such a deeply religious person as yourself, Yuyutsu, can possibly have more consideration for an atrocious murderer than for his or her victims. I am afraid your legendary mysticism has led you astray. He whom you think is your God must be none other than the devil.

Beware, my friend. Take care !

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 3:18:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//all I can see is a teenager trying to look smart by calling his debate opponents fools in one form or another.//

Et tu Brute.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 4:56:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Whatever is beyond my power is beyond my power and I'm not responsible for it: at least I've done my best to prevent violence done "on my behalf".

«for greater solidarity on the regional, state, national and international scene.»

You cannot expect from me any solidarity with a body-of-people that forces its membership on others. That body-of-people could otherwise perhaps be great and very useful, but if even ONE(1) individual is forced to belong to it against their will, then I pray for that body to be eliminated.

«In my view, we must recognize and accept our differences; it is these differences that make our culture so rich and our nation strong.»

But this is a utilitarian approach: lucky that in this case morality and utility coincide, but even if the situation were to our personal/cultural/national detriment, we must still accept (at least tolerate) differences because doing otherwise would be immoral and sinful.

«If, in fact, you were murdered, the police would probably interpret that to mean that you knew someone wanted to kill you»

It would look suspicious if I was murdered the day after I wrote my will, but not after it was in the safe, untouched for many years.
Anyway, let them think whatever they want, my thoughts when writing my will were actually of total strangers rather than of family.

«Murder is a crime against the state»

You make it sound like a virtue...
(but of course it isn't: others are hurt too)

«It is totally irresponsible to request that the murderer continue to remain free in order to murder whomever he likes»

Nobody should lose their freedom just because they killed my body.
If others want to stop the murderer, that should only be on grounds of self-defence: fear of future rather than revenge over the past. Such fear is a weakness, but still acceptable.

«more consideration for an atrocious murderer than for his or her victims»

More consideration for the victims, lest their suffering deepens and is carried further into the future if they keep pushing the wheel of suffering.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 10:27:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« You cannot expect from me any solidarity with a body-of-people that forces its membership on others. That body-of-people could otherwise perhaps be great and very useful, but if even ONE(1) individual is forced to belong to it against their will, then I pray for that body to be eliminated »

There seems to be a wound deep inside you, Yuyutsu. It’s none of my business what it is, but I hope one day you will manage to forgive and forget.

With best wishes.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 6:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy