No problem JL, and I must say those ARE better solutions.

Anyway, the 'rape victim' case IS a lame topic to base abortions on- as aside from obviously excluding any non-rape request from the right to abort (which most advocates want), but it twists the argument of "when a fetus has rights" solely on whether the woman concieved it against her will, or did so "immorally".

(and yep- I'm a moment-of-birth person).

Look forward to the hypothesis (looks like I'll also have to wait the 24h to reply).

Can we get back to the topic of euthanasia and move away from the notion that anybody opposed to it (and, it seems, abortion as well) is necessarily religious - people should be self-determining, women should be in coltrol of what happens to their bodies, everybody should have autonomy over their own lives.

If a person's decision is consonant with the narrow field of euthanasia - we're not talking about suicide or murder - then it is that person's decision - but how to ensure that the 'decision' is genuinely made, if the person does nto have the physical ability to take their own life ? i.e. probably also does not have the physical ability to write a note, or sign a document, etc. ?

Where is the space in which euthanasia is relevant or applicable but suicide or murder are not ?

Joe

KH. These examples are intended to illustrate the clumsiness of the conscience clause and how it might operate in the real world. I'm anti-conscience clause, so I'm not aiming for balance here. I'm just trying to demonstrate that things are not always black and white, though you may still see it that way, in all these cases too.

Case 1. Claire is having a rough time and she has just realised she has an unwanted pregnancy. Before she married, she got a abortion from the local clinic, so she knows the service. She has been seeing a lot of the young local doctor and now sees her as friend. So she attends doctor really looking for a shoulder , but is told that her doctor (the doctor is also aware that Claire has previously accessed an abortion and knows the ropes) has a religious objection to abortion, and can't be involved. Doctor doesn't refer her to another doctor. Claire leaves hurt, because what she needed was a friend, and the doctor didn't fill that role. In the eyes of the law, the doctor has broken the law by not referring the patient even though the patient knows how to obtain a termination.

Case 2. Sue wants an abortion. This is her third abortion. This is nothing unusual and no reflection on Sue. Sue lives in a small country town. To get an abortion, she will have to drive 150kms and stay overnight. Every election, a health clinic is promised that could not only help her avoid this, and offer other medical services but after each election, it disapears off the radar. Frustated by this, she attends the local doctor, when she is 12 weeks pregnant to ask about the abortion pill. Sue is told politely that he can not help due to his religion, but that she would not be a candidate for the RU486 in any case as she is at 12 weeks. TBC

He also says he has genuine concerns about the safety of the drug (his view, not mine, so not worth a debate) and wouldn't prescribe it anyway. The doctor is also aware that she knows that travel in this case is unavoidable.

He tells her though, to please contact him in case of complications post termination. Sue out of frustration with her situation reports him for not referring. This doctor even if he didn't have a religious objection doesn't have the facilities to perform abortions himself, and he also simply doesn't think he is skilled enough to do this surgical procedure.

Case 3. The extreme one! In the paper the other day was a woman who went public about her 17 abortions. She effectively is using abortion as a way of self harming. So in this case, Sarah, a woman with a similar mental illness who is up to number 8 termination, visits a doctor who in the past has always referred, but refuses to do so in this case, until she has attended counselling, because he is worried about her physical and mental state. The patient doesn't need his participation, but part of her illness is to seek attention from as many medicos are possible. Again the doctor has broken the law by not referring, but for reasons that he thinks are in the patient's interest. She reports him for not referring.

I'd like your opinion on whether any of these people should lose their jobs over these breaches. Situations similar to case 1 and 2 maybe aren't impossible occurences.

I hope euthanasia is legalised, but when it is, then there should be real measures introduced to make sure patients are able to access the service, not bits of window dressing such as the conscience clause.

But surely the sticking point still is: what is euthanasia and when is a death NOT murder, manslaughter or suicide ? Or from natural causes ? How can a court (since the legal system is supposed to protect all of us from unnatural death by imposing penalties on those who cause it) distinguish between natural death, death at one's own hand, death caused by someone at another's request, manslaughter and murder ?

A tight, narrow definition of euthanasia might be useful, instead of vague statements about somebody wanting to die but unable, etc.

And why does discussion of euthanasia so often allude to Alzheimer's, which by definition suggests a lack of conscious understanding, which is surely a necessary factor in euthanasia ?

Dear Loudmouth,

There was a definition of voluntary euthanasia embodied in the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (ROTI) in the Northern Territory which four people used to put an end to their existence in a dignified manner. The act required physicians to certify that the person concerned was not suffering from depression and had legitimate reason to wish for death. The Commonwealth Parliament decided to deny people an exit to their suffering in a reasonable manner. The problem is not lack of definition but unwillingness to allow people the right to choose.