Another of Dave’s “bio-solid” euphemistic pieces. Calculated euphemisms clutter the world we live in. Let's just call it out: assisted dying is “murder by doctor” , so too is abortion!

"murder by doctor" is an emotional description that is far from accurate, firstly because if the procedure were made legal then it would not be murder as murder is the illegal taking of a human life; secondly because it is 'assisted', which could mean simply the provision of a pill that could be taken whenever the potential suicide wishes to use it.

Assistance would not be confined to doctors.

This is such an emotional issue for so many people.
I've gone through the experience of
this with my mum who passed away at the end of January
this year. She was in her nineties and suffered from dementia.
It was difficult watching her go downhill.

She went from a fiercely independent proud woman into the
agony of a semi-vegetative state. Perhaps letting her die
in peace and serenity would have been a kinder option.
I'm not sure. Even had it been made available, I doubt very
much if I would have agreed to it. She was my mum - and when
she seemed to recognise me on my daily visits it made it
all seem better.

Assisted suicide - I personally feel should be for the
terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, who are in
constant pain. But even then there should be safe-guards
put in place to protect people.

It's well past time that people were allowed to choose for themselves. We don't really need any more of the same old opinions on the subject. Those who want euthanasia should fight for it; those who don't need not be involved.

Therein lies the problem - there are many who are not able to
fight for themselves and those who are may also not fully
realise what's involved. It's not as clear cut as all that
otherwise it would not be such a problem. The vulnerable need
our protection. As the old adage goes - "Where there's a will,
there's relatives."

A society which allows the killing of unborn babies, but comes over all 'caring' when it comes to euthanasia is a society badly in need of an overhaul. A woman has the right to kill another - infanticide - and have control (control that she chose not to exercise when a child was conceived) over her body, but other adults can't be trusted to know when they want to die. And, the general public has NOT been appointed to 'protect' old people who might not be able to make a decision on whether or not to die; there are doctors and laws to deal with that. Some virtue-signallers and people pretending they care seem to think that everyone would be able to knock granny off willy nilly if euthanasia became legal. Their attitude says more about them than it does about the rest of us.

Well folks, we've now heard some different points of
view - which is one of the reasons why this forum is
so interesting.

Those who are in favour of prolonging the suffering of people for the sake of making themselves feel good should be made to care for those who really don't want to go on.

well the deceitful abortion debate was 'won' by those claiming it was all about the 14 year old girl who had been raped. Now predominantly for convenience close to 100000 babies are butchered here in Australia each year. You would either have to be stupid or naïve to think killing the elderly will be restricted to the cases used in arguments.

Here is an innovative idea; decriminalise suicide, remove its tag from mental illness and call it as personal responsibility.

The system is in play, with currently around three thousand suicides pa in Australia.

Interestingly though, free-will suicide is being treated as an epidemic. There is a total inconsistency on this subject, which brings to question the motivation behind assisted suicide.

Runner has presented with the "touché" moment, encapsulating the inconsistency and fraud it all is.

"Here is an innovative idea; decriminalise suicide,..."

It has been decriminalised, so what's your next idea?

Is Mise

*...It has been decriminalised, so what's your next idea?...*

Go to step two. Make suicide universally acceptable. Isn't that exactly what is being attempted by the proposal to legitimise human euthanasia?

In fact, the numbing process is well under way. People generally, are happy to euthanise their pet dog or cat at the end of it's useful life. It's a small step to euthanase Granny and Popy. Poor old things, why should they suffer to the end?
Besides, the sooner dead the sooner we scoop the inheritance!

"... Calculated euphemisms clutter the world we live in. ..."

as in your last post.

If suicide is a solution, then that can be applied instead of finding answers to change many ailments. Whether it's terminal illness or it's a growing depression, death is just giving up. If you give up on helping those who are the most vulnerable then sucide will be offered as an easy answer.

The whole idea is just sick.

Suicide should be strongly advocated for those who make the lives of others a misery.

Individual, it's ideas like that which will kill the most vulnerable instead of trying to help them. But worse it's done for the connivence of someone else. So the other person (not the terminally ill person, nor the depressed person) is not as miserable.

Do you really not see that as already a steep, slippery slope for other excuses to talk people into killing themselves? "Your a burden to me, so you should do the right thing and kill yourself." "I don't want to pay for a nursing home to help you, and I can't help your dementia, so you should kill your self.

How much farther into the reasoning would a person have to go before desiring to make the decision themselves instead of waiting for the other person to commit sucide! It's an active encourager of either murder, or a lazy approach to not find help that might be readily available or recently discovered that can help an ailment.

Not_Now.Soon,

Bent people are not known to top themselves unless they're cornered for good. It's people with integrity who can't manage to cope with the crap that the hanger-on brigade dishes out every minute of the day. Just check on Centrelink as just one example.
The unreasonable (greedy & selfish) bombard us with constant messages of how the rest of us should live. Just look at those Help Lines, they urge people to learn how to accept more & more persecution instead of showing them ways & means how to fight back.
As you said it's all about connivance. I recall helping an 84 year old Scientist walking up a small beach. He was totally lucid & he said to me quote: " What a nuisance being that old". He also said that even if the mind is clear, if the body is stuffed then there's no point in prolonging the mental pain of hanging on for what ?

No. Without the absolute right to defend life there's no safeguard.

And spare me the bleeding heart "dying with dignity" spiel. I know what it's like after watching my brother reduced to a skeleton with skin over a protracted losing battle with cancer.

No. Without the absolute right to defend life there's no safeguard.
Jamo,
Of course we must defend the right to live just as we must defend the right to fend off those who want to put us under the yoke of misery.
Govt doesn't defend either, they only say so because it sounds good to many. We must evaluate the situation ourselves & take steps accordingly & if possible.
Look at the many abused children ? The authorities only step in after the abuse not before when concerned people first report it. Then, there's no end to the money spent on investigations. A fraction of the cost of investigations would help poor families to feed their kids & get old & sick people some decent care.
But no, let the crap happen first & then cry sorry.
As long as welfare is not primarily a service but a career path first, this dreadful trend will continue.

To Individual.

For the older man it is sad that he lost meaning you to live on. I don't have any answer for him. Not yet anyways. But I do know suicide thoughts. And I know that though it's sad what that man said, it would be tragic if a younger man said the same thing, even if he had lost much of his health in an auto accident.

For the older man, the sadness that lingers is enough to say "let him pass on," "let him die on his terms." But if you allow yourself to think that same way for younger man then something is seriously wrong. You should want to help him find a reason to live or to find new meaning in life. On the other hand if you really don't see the point that it would be tragic to have the younger man kill himself, then my next point will be wasted on you. (My hope is that something is not that wrong with you).

If the younger man's life is worth fighting for and not giving up on, then so is the older man's life worth fighting for and not giving up on. Suicide is sad enough a reality of the world, there is no reason to help it along with assisted suicide. Especially for the horrible reasons that the person makes your life miserable. Mark my words the reasoning you are using is an excuse to not try and help another person, but to advocate a solution of killing themselves instead of helping them or those in the same situations. It is a steep slippery slop towards negligence of a vulnerable population.

Regarding suicide. Those who off themselves usually do it in a moment of temporary stress, or in a time of hardship. Trying to give them a reason to live on is a good answer for those situations because sometimes that's exactly what people need to hear. A reason to keep on going. Just so you're aware, instead of spouting off ignorant pro-suicide philosophy. Something the world doesn't need any more of.

.

Suicide is perfectly legal in Australia. We can commit suicide whenever we like and wherever we like.

However, we cannot commit suicide however we like.

If we want to commit suicide in a calm, peaceful, painless manner in a nice cosy environment, among our loved ones, with competent medical assistance - that is illegal.

It has to be done by improvisation, with whatever means are available, and is usually a macabre, gruesome, excruciatingly painful, barbaric affair : e.g., hanging, cutting veins and bleeding to death, jumping off a roof, throwing oneself over a cliff onto the rocks below, jumping on the rails in front of a train or a high speeding car or truck on the motorway, suffocating by tying a plastic bag over one's head ...

All that is legal.

Right-minded society obviously considers it more acceptable - at least, from a legal point of view.

Could its attitude be motivated by fear, existentialist angst ?

.

To Banjo Paterson

[Could its attitude be motivated by fear, existentialist angst ?]

It's also entirely possible that the reasons and motivations are what people actually say they are. Reread the comments of those who are against a policy of assisted suicide. I think all of them so far explain themselves well enough to understand the reasons they stand against it.

As for assisted suicide being more nobel and painless then suicide without help, my reply is the same as what was said before. Suicide is a tragedy, and should be assisted in helping people find a means to live instead of encouraging them to give up.

Jamo's take on it is that without a strong stance defending life, then there's no safeguard against .... Well I could give a few things it could safeguard against, so I agree with it. But if your confused on the reasoning or motivation on that comment perhaps a direct question is better.

Diver Dan and Runner both seem clear on their reasoning. Calling it murder by doctor, and saying there's no reason to trust the arguments for assisted suicide to be any different from abortion, where now abortion is done casually.

As a rule though, taking people for what they actually say when they explain themselves is a good practice.

To Plantagenet.

Are you offended that I am Christian? Or that I identify my understanding or my points come from a Christian foundation. I would not be insulted if someone says "as a doctor," "as a woman/ as a man," "as a student," or as anything else. It is a phrase to explain where a person's points are coming from. They aren't saying that they are saintly or anything like that, nor am I saying that. Since you decided not to reply to the actual points I had made, I have to assume that the conversation is of no value to you, but instead your insulted that Christians actually hold the bible to be from God in one way or another. I will not apologize for being Christian, and if you're insulted, that's on you not on me.

To Toni.

That's not a bad question. As far as racism goes I can't think of any reason to justify it. From a religious perspective I don't think race is a factor. It's the teachings that matter not a person's heritage. Regarding sexism the only arguments that can be applied to sexism could be if a religion says that women should not teach, that women are not allowed in a certain religious position (like a priest or something similar), or in a non-teaching environment being sexist to a job based on a strength level between men and women (an argument for women to not be active police officers, firemen, or soldiers). Only one of those reasons applies to schools, and even that reason is not an excuse for so many examples of sexism from wage difference to condescending attitudes towards women or men.

(Continued)

(Continued)

To Yuyutsu.

[To guarantee freedom of religion, the only safe way is therefore to allow ALL teachings, then leave it for the parents to determine who will teach their children.]

I agree. The only things to restrict this is whether there is a dangerous, criminal, or terrorist element within the schools or the teachers lessons; and the other is if the school teaches a minimum subjects to ensure the students leave school with the tools to make it in the world. Math, reading, and writing would be that minimum in my opinion. Anything beyond that would be up to the government such as history or science classes. But for religious freedom to exist then any religious teaching should be allowed to be taught from a religious teacher. That said, if a teacher wants to say they teach correctly, then a peer from that religion should be able to say they are or are not teaching correctly.

.... Sorry guys. The last two replays were meant for a different conversation.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

Thank you for your response and for contributing to this important debate. It helps identify some of the problems, misconceptions and misunderstandings, in addition to providing an insight into our different personal experiences, perceptions, interpretations, and world-views.

Please be assured that I have carefully read and understood “the comments of those who are against a policy of assisted suicide” (including the few that are clearly articulated here on this thread).

Of course there are comments, but you will recall that I was not referring to the “comments” of those who are against a policy of assisted suicide. I was referring to the “attitude” of “right-minded society” and pondered if it could possibly be “motivated by fear, existentialist angst”.

In my mind “comments” are simply the outward expression of something much deeper inside the person, an underlying motivation which may not necessarily be rational or intellectual but more of an instinctive or emotional nature – which is why I evoked the possibility that it may, perhaps, be due to the reaction of “fear” or “existentialist angst” that the prospect of death often provokes among many of us.

The essence of the matter is who has the right to decide if we should live or die.

I, personally, consider that it is the sole responsibility of each individual to answer that question so far as his own life is concerned.

For those of us who prefer to prolong their lives as long as possible – with the help of the best medical assistance available – I consider that society should do everything it can to make this possible and facilitate it.

For those of us who prefer not to prolong our lives – with the help of the best medical assistance available – I consider that society should also do everything it can to make this possible and facilitate it.

Our characters and personalities, social and cultural backgrounds, beliefs and personal convictions, experiences, perceptions, interpretations, and world-views are particular to each and every one of us.

Society should provide the legal framework to accommodate us all.

.