.

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 …)

.

.

(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.

.

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.

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.

//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.

.

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.

.