Sandra Kanck's parliamentary display last month was irresponsible and dangerous. The South Australian state government should keep euthanasia illegal and not perform a conscience vote in parliament. Actively killing someone is wrong. We do not have the right to decide when we die. I agree that the removal of medical treatment is acceptable as this is letting nature take its course but actively killing yourself is considered suicide and people who commit suicide are not in the right state of mind. Even worse, family and friends deciding to actively kill someone? This is almost murder and can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. People should be receiving more psychological help and care than allowing them to freely kill themselves.

Is it necessarily true that people who kill themselves are not in the right state of mind?

What is "the right state of mind"?

In particular, can one conclude that the right state of mind is one in which people do not kill themselves without including that as part of the definition?

If someone is suffering from an intractable and unpleasant illness, how can we say that they are not in the right state of mind if they choose to end their suffering by ending their life? Doesn't the rationality of the decision to do so depend on a value judgment about the quality of life that the person has? Who is in the best position to make that judgement?

I continue to be concerned that the present laws against euthanasia force some people to terminate their lives prematurely for fear of reaching a point where they are no longer capable of doing so.

Cruelty comes in many forms, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Sylvia.

What a ridiculously ignorant opinion. I have worked in hospitals for nearly two decades. Most people who die of cancer or disease in palliative care are actually killed by pain killers. High doses of morphine or other opiates eventually stop the heart. Is that murder? Have you ever even attended the death of a cancer patient? Have you even seen what happens behind the closed doors of hospitals? Obviously not. You are prepared to base your opinion on your ignorance. Ignorance is your luxury. It is a luxury that dying people don't have. Voluntary euthanasia should be everyones choice. Whether you make that choice should be up to the individual. Who are you to deny me my right to the death of my choice when or if I am facing a hopeless painful death?

We do not have the right to decide when we die. I agree that the removal of medical treatment is acceptable as this is letting nature take its course but actively killing yourself is considered suicide and people who commit suicide are not in the right state of mind. Even worse, family and friends deciding to actively kill someone? This is almost murder and can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.
Posted by MmMm, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 6:54:01 PM

You state your position as if it is a fait d'accompli - why do you think we dont have the right to decide when we die - what is that belief based on?

As for 'letting nature take its course' it might be nature taking its course to let crocodiles eat your children too but you are not going to do that. That is a facile piece of rationale with little intrinsic support.

And dont mix voluntary with involuntary euthanasia - they raise some fundamenatally different issues - no-one has 'family and friends deciding to actively kill someone' when they end their own lives.

So what do you intend to do if someone fails in an attempt to commit suicide. Drag them through court and sentence them to death?

MmMm

As someone living with terminal, incurable, cancer. I find your post extremely offensive. I will decide when I die.

I can assure you I will be in the right frame of mind, there will come a day when you have to face your own mortality perhaps you will then see the error in your thinking.

Until then stop moralising to others who must make this decision.

MmMm,

If you are content to die a prolonged, painful and undignified death, I’m happy for you. And, if you do die that way, to hell with tact, I think you will have deserved it, with your sanctimonious preaching to others.

I should think that Steve Madden would find your post offensive. You are offensive; telling others that they should have no control over the manner of their death when they are suffering. I rarely attack fellow posters, but you are the pits!

Who the hell are you to say that people do not have the right to decide when they wish to die? How do you know the state of other peoples’ minds? Psychological help for people suffering pain when palliative care doesn’t work? You are the one who needs psychological help!

All those in favour of euthanasia say aye! Yep, looks like the 'ayes' have it! MmMm, I strongly suspect that if the loony religious right were removed from politics, especially idiots like Kevin Andrews and a National vote cast on the subject of euthanasia, I have no doubt at all that the 'ayes' would also have it there too. Like my sister, with whom I've had many a heated argument regarding her anti-euthanasia stance, you seem to be overcome with emotion about poor suffering people choosing to end their miserable life while some semblance of dignity remains. If you remove the emotion of..."Even worse, family and friends deciding to actively kill someone? This is almost murder and can be very dangerous in the wrong hands"... you'll discover there's a very big difference between a family helping a loved one to end their suffering and outright murder, however, I must thank you for starting this thread. It's a great pity the rest of Australia couldn't join in. It might just open your eyes to the reality of the situation. Euthanasia is a very emotive issue true, but several polls across Australia at the time of the Kevin Andrews travisty of power in relation to the NT euthanasia laws conclude that most people would welcome the choise of whether or not to end their suffering peacefully. It doesn't mean they'll go down the path of euthanasia, but Australian's certainly demand the right to choose.

MmMm

It’s true that atm we don’t have the right to decide when we die- that’s why euthanasia should be legalised.
Who are you (or anyone else) to decide whether a person who is suffering agonizing, unbearable pain and have no hope of recovery has to suffer unnecessarily just because YOU don’t think they should be given the right to die peacefully, perhaps with all their family members around them.
Let everyone decide for themselves.

I am from a country where euthanasia is legal and there have been some good documentaries of people who died a peaceful death through euthanasia in loving company.
It’s not a spur-of-the-moment decision. Patients who request euthanasia go through a series of assessments, talks with psychiatrists, have second opinions, have group conversations involving the immediate family, decide on the time, accompanying music etc. It is a last resort. If pain killers don’t work the least we can do is show some compassion.

For them, it’s just like falling asleep in an as relaxed as possible atmosphere.
If you have compassion, then you will agree that this is far more humane than ‘letting nature take its course’- which can be long, agonising and lonely.

Steve Madden,
Great post. Sorry to hear that you are so ill.

As a person who has recently lost somebody to cancer, a long battle in which the last four months could be described as nothing less than traumatic and painful, I am deeply offended at your inhumanity and lack of caring for others MmMm. There is so much to consider that is no more than extremist politics to control others to flippantly try and take away peoples choices concerning their lives and bodies. Keep in mind two things- firstly they do not choose to be in pain and dying and secondly they are not you!

Please remind me when the universe sent around the memo declaring you owned the human population

MmMn

I am posting this to help put things into perspective for you. I am in no way seeking sympathy and I am at peace with myself .

I have chronic lymphocytic leukeamia. I have had it for many years, at 52 years old I am nearing the end of my journey.

I am chemotherapy refractory, in other words the drugs that used to kill my cancerous blood cells no longer work. A matched unrelated donor bone marrow transplant bought me some more time but as always with CLL it came back.

I have no immune system so a simple cold may kill me, I have been in hospital with neutropenia induced fevers of unknown origin. I have idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (very low platelets) so death from a bleed in my brain is a real possibility.

I have leukaemic arthritis caused by infiltration of cancerous lymphocytes into the synovium of all my joints. I have a pleural effusion caused by lymphocytes in the pleura and have to have a couple of liters of fluid drained every four weeks.

My bedroom looks like a pharmacy, the lymph nodes under my arms make me look like a penguin, my spleen has been removed.

I have an intravenous catheter for the drugs and blood draws.

I use fentanyl transdermal patches for pain relief (80 stronger than morphine) but still enjoy a beer every now and then.

My death is something I have planned, it is not time yet as I still enjoy my life.

Would you deny me some dignity in my death? Would you deny me to be with my family and friends? Or would you like me to die alone?

I note you have not responded to the replies to your original post. You are a worthless waste of oxygen.

I have a thought for those who claim their objection to suicide is based on Christianity.

When I was young a distant uncle who lived not far from us was killed by a fast train in the middle of the night and his poor family stood to get a big leg up from his insurance payout however his death was ruled to be suicide and no claim paid.

You see he worked shift and often came home in the middle of the night - we all knew the fast train that came through at that time as our houses all reverberated with every train that passed.

Also everyone crossed the train line at the level crossing there was nothing strange or illegal about that but what was critical is that someone had seen my uncle 'waiting' on the track. It was apparently done with knowledge aforethought and was therefore seemed suicide.

Consider the death of Jesus - he went to the Garden at Gethsemane and WAITED for the guards to come. In Christian Belief he knew what was going to happen to him if he stayed there - just as my uncle would have. Both apparently had plenty of time to leave - in fact for Jesus the wait seemed particularly difficult so much so that he sweated blood - so why is one suicide and one not?

My uncle's suicide was 'suicide by train', Jesus' action was no less 'suicide by roman guard'.

The fact that for Jesus it was a sacrifice is also not relevant - it was also a sacrifice by my uncle (a much bigger sacrifice as it turns out since he has been dead for a lot more than 3 days and he probably didnt get to sit at the right hand of God afterward although both of them failed to gain that for which they were making the sacrifice).

So before 'Christians' start saying suicide is 'unchristian' better take a look at the behaviour of your role model.

And before calling a euthanised person's family members 'murderers' you are calling God a murderer as well.

As He is (supposed to be) almighty He could have prevented Jesus' crucifixion.

He did nothing to protect his son from being nailed to a cross.

Whos descision is this to be made, yours the gevernment i do not think so

This should be a personal choice as to this has the option for a person to pass away peacefully and with dignity.

A persons rights are just that and when it come to ones self that is up to that person.

Australian Peoples Party
email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

I agree wholeheartedly with the great majority of posts in this discussion. We have the right to decide when our lives should end - if they are not ended by external circumstances. I took the trouble to obtain a copy of Sandra Kanck's speech, made more difficult by the puerile decision of the SA government to prohibit its publication on the Hansard web site.

It is well worth reading, and is readily available by sending an e-mail to her office address. A printed copy will then be sent to you. It is a mature, sensitive and well informed plea for compassion in making available humane ways of euthanasia. What is less realised is that it is also a strong argument against suicide in young people, or for those other than for whom life has become intolerable.

At any time, I have the right to end my life. But jumping off of a 20 storey building or blowing my head off with a shotgun are grossly irresponsible to those left behind. Drugs and car exhaust are uncertain. When my time comes (and come it will), I want the option to go as peacefully as possible, and not to have to leave in pain, fear and confusion because of political cowardice and religious blindness.

Bloody christian for sure. When are you going to realise that god decides on judgement day if youv'e done wrong, and will deal with your actions appropriately. It's not up to you blasphemous fools to judge anybody. So keep your idiotic opinions to yourself.

"It's not up to you blasphemous fools to judge anybody. So keep your idiotic opinions to yourself."

That's a judgmental thing to say, ryechus ;+)

“Judge not, lest ye be judged judgmental”
Florence King

Yes he/she who speaks for god claims they are god.

very judgemental, Celivia, but I'm not a christian (nor anything else actually) so I can say those things.

Its a pity the debate on this thread has been so emotive, and those there has so far been no response from those who oppose euthanasia.

Can I begin by saying that I support the concept of euthanasia for the terminally ill. I saw my mother die of cancer, and the image of her decline is firmly imprinted in my brain. Not one who has seen such would deny the terminally ill the right to bypass the last stages of their illness.

That said, the main problem with legalising euthanasia is being able to establish appropriate boundaries, guidelines and accountability. Its a good concept, but its also a pandora's box. Consider the following questions:

1. How is it determined that someone has the right to assisted suicide? A doctor's opinion, two doctors, the GP and the specialist, two specialists from different hospitals? Would you have to prove that the opinions were independent, and how would you do so?

2. What are the legal implications for the doctor assisting (assuming that it will be medically supervised), if there is a post-death challenge by a family member? Will it increase the load of medical litigation, and further drive doctors out of business.

3. What happens if the person choosing to die is not longer able to communicate their wishes? Does their family get to choose - this opens up further issues of abuse of power and murder.

4. Do we stop with the terminally ill? What about the elderly? Or mentally retarded? What about those that are brain-damaged in accidents? Who makes the decisions for these people? Where is the transparency and accountability?

5. What if we end up with the situation where doctors who want hospital beds or family members that want inheritances start to counsel those who are eligible for euthanasia to take that option, particularly when the person affected might not have otherwise chosen it, or may have gone on for much longer otherwise. Pain is a very powerful motivator, particularly when someone is constantly advocating a way out.

Once you start, where do you draw the line?

Country Gal, you make some good points but most do not stack up.

Everybody in Australia has the “right” to kill themselves, in fact about 3,000 people a year kill themselves, it is no longer a crime to attempt suicide. It is only a crime to assist someone. I think two doctors should have to say that the person is suffering and that there is no chance of medical intervention reversing the situation. All doctors have taken an oath to “do no harm”.

Medical liability all depends on the legislation, if it is properly drafted then these doctors have no issues to face.

Informed consent is the all important issue, if a person cannot communicate their wishes then euthanasia is a non issue, they cannot tell people they wish to die.

You are assuming that people can be talked into killing themselves, but then state that pain is a powerful motivator. Many people live with chronic pain but do not choose to kill themselves, but for some the pain is overwhelming. The issue again is informed consent.

You are putting forward a “thin edge of the wedge” argument but in my view it has no basis, people can kill themselves legally. The issue is do they have to do it alone?

I've supported euthanasia since Dad gave me Welcome to the Monkeyhouse to read when I was a teenager (about a hundred years ago), which is how I learned it existed.

Half an hour ago I got home from visiting Dad in hospital. A fortnight ago he had a tumour taken out of his head which turned out to be a glioblastoma multiforme. Life is not an option any more.

A week later he had his first massive seizure which did not harm in itself (although it scared the daylights out of us lookers on), but he crushed two vertebrae when he fell and is in terrible pain.

He's having radiation and chemo which will prolong his life for a while.

He says dying doesn't bother him and in fact he makes jokes about it, but it does bother him that the only option medicine has is to prolong the most frightening part of his life.

He's terrified of having to live through the extra time and the prospect of more pain and humiliation to come.

None of us want to lose him, but none of us are selfish enough to expect him to live in fear and pain just to please us. There is no honour for any of us in this, least of all Dad.

It's insane.

Chainsmoker is right - it is insane, in addition to which it is wholly immoral that anyone should be required to end their lives in pain, indignity and fear.

Countrygal raised some legitimate questions, and these need to be looked at carefully. The SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society (SAVES) at http://www.saves.asn.au has some very useful fact sheets looking at these issues - I have no doubt other similar state societies do the same. If you are interested in some of the answers to the questions raised by Countrygal this is a very good place to start looking.

It is important not to underestimate suicide - people do not end their own lives lightly. We, like all species, have not survived by throwing in the towel every time things got tough. For most people that drive prevails even through the most terrible trials and pain.

If people decide to end their own lives there must be an ENORMOUS power of motivation behind it. People may not 'go to a birthday party' or some such non-event because relatives are 'applying pressure' but they do not kill themselves over such crumbs.

To end one's own life is the biggest decision anybody can ever make. To stand on that precipice - and consciously commit the act that ends all acts - is gigantic.

To think that trifles play a big part is folly.

Rob, I dont suggest that the matter is trifling at all. But please dont suggest that people cant be swayed by the opinions of others. There can be enormous pressure placed by people on those who are already suffering great physcial and mental strain. Mostly you see this now as an argument against death, trying to convince those suffering to sustain hope for new treatments, miracles, etc. But if euthanasia ia legalised, then who is to say that in some cases there wont be this pressure the other way. Some such as Steve Madden appear to have their heads firmly screwed on, but not everyone in his situation is as mentally stable and resolute. A friend of mine is currently close to the final stages of her cancer, but is determined to hang onto life by the tips of her fingernails if thats what it takes. She has had people around her (including family members) that have been heard to say a number of times that she should just finish is and get it over with, and others that she should just accept the inevitable. She's kicked them out, reasoning that they are only undermining her determination. Again, not everyone is that strong.

My other main worry, is that where do we draw the line. If the terminally ill are able to be assisted to die, what about the elderly? Should they be denied the same dignity? Again, how do you put effective safeguards in place? You say that doctors take an oath not to harm, but there are enough cases in history of doctors that murder patients and otherwise harm them, that this oath alone is not enough to assume the doctor had only pure intentions.

Country Girl terminally ill patients are given choices concerning their treatment all through their illness. You can decide not to be treated and that is legal although that most likely in many cases be a life ending in pain. Medical euthanasia is not a person walking off the street and saying " ok I want to die now" that is already happening in homes. Euthanasia is a suffering person saying " I am suffering please help me". It is hard for us healthy but to say no is to turn our backs on those who want it and condemn them to suffering. As for pain killers there are thresholds and many will derrange the patients in the end. What else can be offered? Prayer? Prayer at worst is used to murder sick children and spouses denying them treatment. Prayer at best to make well wishers feel like there is hope in the case of a dying person is to kill them with pain.
In the end it is ourselves we are talking about and not the suffering. We are saying we dont want to let go but if its what loved ones choose why let their death be an undignified death?

I am just wondering whether MmMm is seeing a different side to euthanasia now that there have been some other points of view presented to him/her.

Personally I think that if we have freedom of choice and we are a free people then we should be free to decide when and if we wish to die, for whatever reason.

If we dont have that right then we do not have freedom of choice and we are being controlled by those that think that they know what is best for us.

Posted by Country Gal, Sunday, 29 October 2006 10:28:08 AM
"A friend of mine is ... determined to hang onto life by the tips of her fingernails ...She's kicked them out... not everyone is that strong."

I think you are arguing my case - people hang onto life tenaciously unless something enormous is against it and if anyone tries to undermine that they will get rid of them. I dont think your relative is exceptional at all - when faced with death all find extraordinary strength.

"My other main worry, is that where do we draw the line."

If an adult person is judged to be sane and not under the influence of some temporary condition by 2 or 3 professional physicians - they should have all options open to them. I would think that its introduction should be progressive with reviews at every stage. There should be cooling off periods. Perhaps it would begin with people over 70 with acute terminal disease. If that works ok make it 60 and so on and see how the culture copes.

I remember when organ transplant were first introduced people said that it was a terrible idea because you would end up having people in third world countries being used as organ banks. This has actually happened with many poor people selling their kidneys, etc. This is abhorrent but the way to stop it is not by disallowing organ transplants.

Rob513264, I am not arguing your point at all. The point that I am trying to make is that this woman has had to cut off contact from her own daughter, who is urging her to "let go" and "accept the inevitable". There are people out there who, for various reasons, will try to convince their family member or friend who is suffering, that it is better to end it now. My point is if one person gives in to this pressure, then we have created a bad thing.

Are you are suggesting that if just one person could feasibly be influenced into requesting euthanasia against their better judgement, then that alone is an adequate reason for not having legal voluntary euthanasia?

If every proposed law was rejected just on the possibility that someone somewhere may find a way of abusing it, then we would pass no laws at all.

CountryGal
I see the point you are making about pressure by family.
But I figure that the physicians and psychologists who are dealing with voluntary euthanasia patients are well aware of this possibility of a patient being pressured by family.

In my knowledge, meetings between patients alone and in company of their families with the psychologist and physicians are one of the steps undertaken after a patient has applied for euthanasia.

About the family of the patient.
I read a research report about 'how families cope with euthanasia of a loved one (by Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht in Holland. This was a Dutch report; I haven't found an English translation) stating that families/partners cope better after losing someone who has undergone euthanasia than after losing someone who died a 'natural' death after a long time of suffering.

That is because the family have the opportunity to be very much involved with the process- being informed about pain and pain relief, the process of dying etc.
In short, they are better prepared and informed about the death of their loved one; they have received more support, open talks, and are shown ways of dealing with the situation.

Just watching a loved one fade away slowly in much pain proved to be harder to deal with in this study.

I know lots of mothers who cut their children off for lots of reasons - If we refused to make a law because it would promote disagreements we couldnt make any laws at all.