<<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.

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.

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.

//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.

.

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.

.

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.