Celivia, continuing

Because people break a law that has a sound moral justification doesn’t mean that the law must be changed. However I concede that this may happen as with other things. I think if it does happen we will just have chalk up another victory for the culture of death. However it hasn’t happened yet.

You say, “without euthanasia laws there is no clear line about the consent of patients who receive an overdose of morphine”. The Dutch experience of a significant number being euthanised without their permission makes this statement meaningless, quite unconvincing.

You ask, would I approve of voluntary euthanasia if you were satisfied that the restrictions would remain in place? No I wouldn’t, although quantitatively the numbers occurring would be significantly different whether the restrictions remained in place or not, and that is of real significance.

I consider your question highly hypothetical. Could you confirm to me that should Ms Hartland’s legislation be approved there would never be any loosening of the restrictions?

The current practice in Holland is not something I would like to see in Australia. I would like to hear from Yvonne and Celivia their endorsement or otherwise of the current Dutch practice.

Weren’t you just a little disconcerted to have read (and I quote the article “Mercy kill wife admits lies in court (DT, 3rd June 2008) “A woman who inherited $2.2 million after her husband changed his will one week before he died from a drug overdose has admitted lying to doctors, etc about her role in his death”. I believe she was convicted of manslaughter. Convince me that legalising euthanasia will not open Pandora’s box for all these kinds of nefarious acts.

Gusi, good luck in finding any information on Australian numbers. There are none. There is NO obligation whatsoever in Australia to notify the coroner when a dying person has died because of a lethal dose of Morphine. No doctor here has as yet notified the coroner when a death has been hastened.

This is the very point that I'm trying to make. There are no figures in Australia and therefore the assumption is made that everybody just dies here at their 'allotted' time.

There is NO requirement to notify the coroner when a person dies in Australia after refusing treatment. So, there are no figures.

During a confidential survey reported in the Medical Journal of Australia some years back, <20% of the surgeons in this study reported that they had performed life-terminating acts without an explicit and persistent request>. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/175_10_191101/ashby/ashby.html

The cases that David keeps referring to were cases where the physicians notified the coroner. That's why everybody knows about them. This took enormous courage, but it put out into the public realm what everybody knows happens, it forced the issue out in the open and allowed the discussion what is allowable and what is not. By the public. Not within a professional group to decide what's best and how to 'word' what happens.

David, as to your charge of bigotry.

This nation is a secular nation. Our laws are not the laws of any Christian church, the Islam faith or Hindu faith.

As is befitting a secular nation, there are fewer and fewer laws that are purely religious in nature.

When we speak of amending laws in this nation, it is not about enforcing any personal philosophical viewpoint, religious or non-religious. That is only possible in totalitarian regimes.

I fully support the system as it is in the Netherlands.

It is not for an atheist doctor to determine that it is OK to hasten someone's death and it is not OK for a devout doctor to determine that somebody has to suffer to the bitter end.

Great link, Gusi, I will store it.

David,
Yvonne's link shows that 20% of the Australian surgeons in this study reported that they had performed life-terminating acts without an explicit request supports my statement about the absence of a clear line without euthanasia laws. My point was that banning euthanasia does not prevent ‘life terminations without explicit request’.

You seem to think that if Australia rejects euthanasia laws, then everybody will die a natural death and have hope.
Like with drugs, prostitution and abortion, it is better to accept reality and amend laws accordingly so that there can be rules and regulations, and so that criminal issues can become health issues and doctors are not afraid to discuss, or ask advice from others, about the decisions they have to make.

Euthanasia is a personal choice; people do not belong to churches, atheists, ethicists, philosophers, doctors, and governments... Other people can assist, advise or inform the patient, but they should not restrict a person’s choice.

Now that I know that you are principally opposing euthanasia I can see very little point in continuing the slippery-slope arguments with you because even if we’d spend years finding solutions for them, you’d still be opposed.

That article you asked me to read doesn’t impress me as a repellent of euthanasia laws.
Despite the seriousness of the content I was amused when I read, “…died from an overdose of a popular euthanasia drug…”
An overdose, LOL.
BTW, if the man wanted to commit suicide and Nembutal hadn’t been available in Mexico, perhaps he’d have made himself crash into a light pole, as many suiciders do- would you have suggested that light poles should be outlawed?

Bronwyn,
“Elderly people should be able to live out their last years with as little unnecessary worry as possible.”
Agreed.
But knowing that euthanasia is an option, even if they never utilise it, gives them peace of mind. This is a fact. Like my aunt, about 70% of euthanasia applicants who are accepted never go through with euthanasia but having the option available greatly reduces their worry, fear and stress.

Celivia you say that you can see very little point in continuing the slippery-slope arguments with me because even if we’d spend years finding solutions for them, I’d still be opposed.

But that’s not the point is it? Your answer tells me that you are unwilling to accept my challenge and I therefore conclude you either deny what you in fact know, or else simply don’t care less.

Yvonne,

Our nation is a secular nation in the sense that there is no established religion. Nothing more nothing less.

“Our laws are not the laws of any Christian church, the Islam faith or Hindu faith”. But who is suggesting that?

I am acting as an advocate for a particular bunch of people. Others are free to do the same thing. Christians are just as much citizens as anyone else, despite the unattractive bigots who appear on the threads as soon as - shock, horror, someone identifies as a Christian - to deny Christians the right to express views in accord with their own world view.

You say, “It is not for an atheist doctor to determine that it is OK to hasten someone's death” – but this happens in Holland and almost certainly in Australia, and by asserting this, you perpetrate a lie.

You say, “it is not OK for a devout doctor to determine that somebody has to suffer to the bitter end”, but leaving aside the loaded language, this has been the law of the land.

It is not I who want to change anything, it is you. While I can, I will defend the right to life.

I understand we probably can't take the matter any further on this thread.

“I understand we probably can't take the matter any further on this thread.”
David, we can still try.
People who want the right to life already have that right, by law.

If the voluntary euthanasia law was about taking away rights from one group (people who want the right to life) to give to another (people who want to die), then I could understand your opposition.
But when people are given the right to choose euthanasia, nobody is taking away their, or anyone else’s right to life.
It is about adding another option, not blocking options for patients.
In this debate I am defending the right to life when people want that, and the right to death for patients who want that option.

People who want the right to die to be able to end their suffering do not have that right now, but they should.

Now, try for a moment, to debate just the principle of voluntary euthanasia- merely that patients can choose to die a soft, pain free death to stop their suffering when there is no more relief available and when there is no chance of improvement.

That is what the euthanasia debate should be about.
Of course, there are all kinds of slippery-slope arguments, but these are not part of what is being proposed when we talk about voluntary euthanasia.

You say that even without the slippery-slope arguments, you would oppose voluntary euthanasia.
But I don’t understand why you oppose it, if that is the free will of patients.
I don’t understand why you find it more moral to force people to suffer against their will than to give them free choice over their own life or death.
Why do you believe that you should be able to make the choice for other people, why can’t they make that choice themselves?
They are the only ones that own their own body, their own life.
Why would your group deserve to control whether someone lives or dies- isn’t that up to the person who actually owns that life?

"But when people are given the right to choose euthanasia, nobody is taking away their, or anyone else’s right to life."

How can you be so sure of this, Celivia? It might seem that way from where you're standing now, but the situation in the future is likely to be very different. Once euthanasia is bedded down and practiced routinely, the rights to life of all elderly people will be changed. Many will die earlier than they otherwise would have and many more will live under the cloud of a 'will I, won't I' dilemma in the last part of their lives.

"People who want the right to die to be able to end their suffering do not have that right now, but they should."

Maybe they should, but that right to die will very definitely come at the price of other people's right to live. You can argue that this price is worth the peace of mind it will give to those who need it, and that might be a defensible position. But while you steadfastly continue to ignore the costs involved in other people's lives, and debate the issue as though it's a total win and no loss situation, your argument certainly won't convince me.