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 > The new-economy entrepreneur of DIY death > Comments

The new-economy entrepreneur of DIY death : Comments

By Michael Cook, published 2/2/2006

Michael Cook argues Dr Philip Nitschke has adapted to a new market servicing those who are simply tired of life.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
"with good palliative care, the days of justifying lethal injections with lurid descriptions of excruciating torment are largely over."

Not in the valid opinions of many people who are suffering endless excruciating pain.

"Dying can still be an uncomfortable business marked by weakness, dependency and lack of control, but these do not suffice for euthanasia."

In whose opinion, the Pope's, as relayed by his double agent, Michael Cook? Or in the opinion of those people who are suffering in this way, with no hope of improvement in their condition?

"For years, euthanasia has been tainted by its association with the Nazis"

So why has VOLUNTARY euthanasia had such a high level of support in the community for so many years, if it's so tainted?

"The potential market is far bigger than the white-haired old dears who toddle along to his suicide workshops"

You patronising what-you-are!
Posted by Rex, Friday, 3 February 2006 6:00:59 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
Michael Cook’s ‘positive spin’ on the enactment of the Suicide Related Material Offences Act 2005 cannot disguise the fact that all this will do is drive the voluntary euthanasia movement further underground. This is in no-one’s interest. His patronising comments on ‘white haired old dear dears’ augment those he has previously directed at ‘vulnerable women’, or those now well-known and strong-willed women who have gone public with decisions to end their lives in an effort to promote legal reforms for voluntary euthanasia.

Palliative care specialists concede that even optimal palliative care has not made it unnecessary or unreasonable for some to wish for a hastened death. All should be allowed the choice which they consider to be right for them. Voluntary euthanasia is not an alternative to palliative care, but complementary to it.

‘Privatised DIY death’ is a reaction to the suffering perpetuated through opposition to legal reforms that would respect the rights of desperately ill people to face death on their own terms. How much longer will a lonely death by ones own hand be the only option for those whose suffering will be relieved only through death?

Julia Anaf
Posted by Julia A, Friday, 3 February 2006 10:45:15 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
Unlike most Australians apparently, I cannot 'favour' or 'support' euthanasia. My reasons are manifold and somewhat ill-defined. I am utterly irreligious. Voluntarily dying does instinctively seem somehow a betrayal of our species.
My clearest argument is the old 'slippery slope'. A couple of correspondents have touched on the matter of medical costs. In this country much medical expenditure is (to my regret) borne by the public purse. In an atmosphere of permissiveness surrounding euthanasia, could some future cash-strapped government be relied on not to 'off' the more expensive of their charges. It will help balance the budget for a geriatric population...
As for Nitschke....campaigning for death is a damned strange thing to spend a life on and we would all do well to be highly suspicious of the bloke's motives; something alluded to by the article's writer.
Posted by J. Alfred Prufrock, Saturday, 4 February 2006 6:12:44 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
Thirty years ago, late one Saturday night, my alcoholic father crashed to the floor in a coma.

Upon arrival the locum who responded to my mother's call examined my father and delayed calling an ambulance.

When he did call for an ambulance, he conferred with the ambos for some time, he then checked my father's vitals - dad was dead.

An autopsy was required, as my father was one of those men who rarely attended doctor's - the autopsy revealed a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Had my father been 'saved' he would've been a complete vegetable. Due to the locum's actions my father died peacefully and painlessly in his own home.

My 96 Y.O. grandmother caught pneumonia and was hospitalised, after saying farewell to her daughters and sons, she pulled out all life support during the night and downed some cached painkillers. She, too passed away peacefully and on her own terms after farewelling her family.

My mother, now 82, has made her wishes very clear - she does not want to be placed on life support. If she reaches a stage where she is no longer corpus-mentis then she too wishes to be euthanised.

To demean Dr Nitsche's struggle for the autonomy of terminally ill people is a cheap and shallow argument, the intent of which is simply the desire for control over people's lives.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 5 February 2006 11:50:41 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
Watching somebody slowly die of cancer in their last stages, is a very sad and traumatic experience. An article in today's paper here discusses exactly this. A man in his 70s, having watched his friend go through all this, insists that when his time comes, he wants to die with dignity, not that long, painfull drawn out process.

Religious people sometimes claim that religious belief gives them dignity. It seems that its the religious who want to deny that dignity to people at a time when they would need it most. So much for being humanitarian!
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 February 2006 4:30:34 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
Why in a supposedly civilised society do we continue having the Euthanasia debate?

Would a religious person put down a suffering animal or pet? Of course they would and yet many would let a loved one suffer for what they would wrongly call a moral reason.

Euthanasia has one legal problem. This is where a person (loved one) might place some influence on a Dr in the name of love to gain earlier access to an inheritance. This is so simple to solve.

Everyone should have a living will that expresses their wishes for their time of failing health. If a person (the patient) expresses a wish for Euthanasia then he should be seen by two totally independent Drs (not known to the family) and seperate prognoses given. If the ill person is unable to convey his/her wishes then the living will is examined and the independent Drs should be called in by the attending Dr to make their independent assessments. The decision should be taken based on the living will and the independent Drs opinions only.

The family need not meet these independent Drs.

Once this is done the patient should be Euthanased in a painless and peaceful manner. If God created all things, then he created the option of dying in pain or in peace... Legalise euthenasia so that the peaceful death option is the one that can be chosen should it be the patient's wish.

Having watched both my parents die in agony ... even with morphine ... I can't believe people are against Euthanasia.
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 6 February 2006 9:42:23 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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