Celivia

Thanks for your response.

"Legalise euthanasia, but couple it to excellent palliative care including aged care so that people have a real choice."

Good in theory, but anyone following the current trends - in demand for health services, supply of health services and demographics - will understand that unfortunately the reality will be vastly different, especially for those who can't afford to pay the price that will inevitably be commanded for quality care in the future.

"Ideally, when euthanasia is legal, people should make a living will while still mentally able, to make their wishes very clear about euthanasia."

Again, good in theory but likely to have little effect in reality. Having previously signed a document stating they didn't wish to be euthanased, would do nothing to alleviate the pressure felt by the elderly and terminally ill that they should cease being a burden and opt out, and this pressure would only increase as their health deteriorated.

I see your points on the slippery slope as it relates to abortion but they're two different issues. I support abortion and don't see the slippery slope argument on that issue hurting the poor and vulnerable as I do with euthanasia.

I can see compelling evidence for introducing euthanasia, but the long term ramifications must be considered. It's a vexed issue. And one of the very few where I can't come down clearly one way or the other!

Well, I’ve just read all the comments to date, hoping for a debate but frankly apart from my old friend Celivia and one or two others there’s not too much here.

I would like to point out that I see myself as one of any number of people who may enter a debate with a particular point of view.

I happen to operate with a Christian worldview perspective, and understand there can be different versions of that perspective as well as an number of alternative views.

I do not attempt to privilege my viewpoint but I would like to influence the debate.

To my detractors:

What I have found going through these posts is a lot of intolerant unattractive bigots who cannot get over their twisted hatred of religion (it seems to me) to mount a decent counter argument. I am a Christian who happens to be an Australian and I believe we still have freedom of speech in this country. I am willing to respect your opinion, even if I disagree with what you might say. But I’m not going to be shouted down by intolerant bigots.

I think a consistent point in a number of the comments is that I have made up my observations on the Dutch experience and therefore can be discounted. I understand the importance of this observation for if I am correct, the Dutch experience is a telling blow against legalising euthanasia in Australia.

Before I enter that aspect I note someone wished me to take my own life (pegasus, I believe, whoever he or she is) – I have no intention of doing this, though I do have myelofibrosis and from what I know of it my end (humanly speaking) is likely to be sticky. I hope I will receive the best possible palliative care at the end of my life.

Turning to my sources:

The point about boundaries being widened and liberalisation of euthanasia practice to include many more vulnerable people – see “Assisted Suicide & Death with Dignity: Past, Present and Future, Part III, International Perspective,”International Taskforce on Euthanasia and Wesley J Smith, “Continent Death: Euthanasia in Europe” National Review (December 23, 2004) www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?page=eu0025, also see Euthanasia www.euthansia.com , Thomas Halper, “Accommodating Death: Euthanasia in the Netherlands” in T. Engelhardt, Jr. (ed) The Philosophy of Medicine: Framing the Field, 2000 (Dordrecht: Kluwer) for additional reports on euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands.

Doctors now provide euthanasia/assisted suicide for the terminally ill who ask for it, the chronically ill who ask for it, people with disabilities who ask for it and for around 900 per year even for those who have not asked for it – see Wesley J Smith, “Increasing Reasons for Euthanasia in the Netherlands,” 28/3/2008, LifeNews

Dutch Doctors now provide eugenic infanticide and it is now becoming so common that the
“Groningen Protocol” has been developed to attempt to govern it – see H. Lindemann and M Verkerk, “Ending the Life of a Newborn: The Groningen Protocol,” Jan-Feb 2008, The Hastings Centre Report.

Dutch doctors also assist the suicides of the depressed. This practice of Dutch doctors assisting the suicides of the depressed was given official approval by the Dutch Supreme Court in 1993, in the case of psychiatrist Boutdewijn Chabot who assisted the suicide of a patient who was desperate with grief over the deaths of her two sons. She was not physically ill, she was not dying of cancer but it was argued that suffering was suffering whether it was physical or emotional – see second Smith article.

Re the extent of suicide in Holland, two National Studies were carried out, with the support of the Dutch Medical Association to determine the extent of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands.

To be continued tomorrow.

David Palmer, citing cases dating before the 2001 legislation is deliberately misleading on what is permissible and what happens in the Netherlands today.

Wesly J Smith and his International Taskforce, who is the author of many of the articles cited in that 'taskforce' is stridently anti euthanasia, anti abortion and anti stem cell research. You didn't give a link, I will:
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/holland.htm

Previously I gave a link to the Catholic Church in the Netherlands for the figures of death through euthanasia. The Catholic Church is not supportive of Euthanasia. The numbers they cite are not likely to be 'under reported'.

The cases you mention to support your argument were some of the cases that became part of the debate that took place in the years BEFORE the crimes act was amended in 2001. The 'slippery slope' is acknowledged, by discussing these cases. You know about them because they were seen as important to the debate, they are not examples of how Euthanasia is administered today.

Your overall tone regarding the medical profession in the Netherlands is little different to that of some of the posters you object to.

I leave some links from reputable and different sources on the ongoing debate and numbers. Only the last one is in Dutch. It is from the Institute of Medical Ethics.

http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/minbuza_core_pictures/pdf/c/c_56513.pdf
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/334/7603/1075-a?ck=nck
http://www.worldrtd.net/news/world/?id=874
http://www.medische-ethiek.nl/modules/news/article.php?storyid=441

We must have this debate openly and freely, not by quoting scary half truths or by forcing personal philosophical beliefs on another. Every terminally ill person should be able to openly and fearlessly discuss his own death and be treated with courtesy and respect. Many of us fear it so much, that we cannot believe that another could without being 'depressed'.

Continuing with sources:

The 1991 Study (see “Assisted Suicide & Death with Dignity: Past, Present and Future, Part III, International Perspective,” International Also see Commissie Onderzoek Medische Praktijk inzake Euthanasie, Medische Beslissingen Rond Het Levenseinde, Sdu Unitgeverij Plantijnstraat (1991), vol 1, p13. The study is popularly known as the “Remmelink Report.”) found that physician induced deaths accounted for more 9.1% of annual deaths. Of those deaths, 2,300 were from requested euthanasia, 400 were assisted suicide, 1,040 (an average of approx 3 per day) were euthanasia carried out without the patients knowledge or consent. 0.50% of Dutch physicians suggested euthanasia to their patients

Both 1991 and 1995 Studies (“Assisted Suicide & Death with Dignity: Past, Present and Future, Part III, also see Paul J. van der Maas, et al, “Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands, 1990-1995,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol 336, no 19 (May 8, 1997), p 1385, citing van der Maas et al, “Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life,” (Elseview, 1992) and Diane M. Gianelli, “Dutch data indicate physician-assisted death on rise,” American Medical News, January 13, 1997, p.6) found that although Dutch physicians were required by law to report physician assisted deaths the majority of deaths went unreported

Another study in the New England Journal of Medicine (New England Journal of Medicine, May 10, 2007) found that in the Netherlands in 2005 there were approximately 2325 (1.7%) euthanasia deaths, 100 (0.1%) assisted suicide deaths, 9685 (7.1%) deaths by terminal sedation (sedation followed by dehydration - the deaths by terminal sedation, although intentionally caused were not considered to be part of the total euthanasia practise because the Netherlands defines euthanasia as only the voluntary active cause of death.), 550 (0.4%) deaths resulted from the ending of life without explicit request (These numbers were not part of the euthanasia numbers because they lacked the requirement of voluntary request and therefore were placed in a separate category). Overall, in 2005 there were approximately 12,660 (9.3%) intentionally caused deaths in relation to all deaths in the Netherlands.

Yvonne,

On what basis can you dismiss information because it is from Catholic or other anti euthanasia source? This is akin to saying “I only want to hear one side, my side” . This is anti religious bigotry.

Today I have posted non Catholic sources more recent than 2001.

I’m all for free and open debate, but tell me why I can be called to account for “forcing personal philosophical beliefs on another”? Do you not acknowledge that pro euthanasia people such as most on this thread are doing the same and I would say rather rudely and aggressively.

Let’s debate and acknowledge, whatever side we take, we press our own “philosophical/religious/non religious beliefs on others. Can we be that honest with one another?

I have spent the last few months reading all the atheistic literature I can lay my hands on (and will no doubt be putting stuff up for posting on Online opinion in the non too distant future). Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Onfray and Harris were most definitely “forcing (their) personal philosophical beliefs on another (me)”. I understand and accept that as their mission. Are religiously motivated persons not equally entitled to engage in debate in the public square, seek to influence public policy? Are we that precious that we cannot listen to an alternative position?

I entirely agree that every terminally ill person should be able to openly and fearlessly discuss his own death and be treated with courtesy and respect. I appreciate your sensitivity to the subject. As a Christian minister, in common with all ministers, priests, pastoral care workers, etc, I have been involved in pastoral care of the dying including the chronically ill, young persons. So many experiences, deep sorrow, tears and joys, precious moments, reconciliations and hope too, we see it all.

Do not undervalue palliative care, nor the opportunities afforded. I have seen astonishing things occur.

I’m not sure I follow what you say about the slippery slope. I know it to be real: it happens, in Victoria, Ms Hartland’s proposed restrictions would be blown away within 10-15 years by presenting cases