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

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.

.

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 …)

.

.

(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 …)

.

.

(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.

.

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".
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-