http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=160515

If you think that life is giving you a hard time, think again.

Just imagine, you've had a happy and full life, then suddenly an
accident. You are a paraplegic, trapped in your body. You can't
move, or eat, or even scratch an itch. You spend your hours
reciting the times tables, its basically a living hell, month
after month, year after year. Few of us can even imagine it.

Yet its happening to a fellow in West Australia. He's had enough
and he wants the option to end his life. We are denying him that
option. Yet then we claim to be civilised and caring? Rubbish.

Why can't some people understand that some of us, when we have had
enough, as this poor guy clearly has, want the choice to end things?

How dare people call themselves Christians, claiming to care, yet
forcing these people to suffer, hour after hour, day after day,
month after month, year after year. Frankly I think that is barbaric.

Shame on those religious barbarians who are denying this man, what
should be his right

Yabby,

Being an atheist, I generally agree with Euthenasia.

But unfortunately not in this case.

I may be wrong here but Christian appears to have brain of a normal person and is not in insufferable pain.

Having done all these thing, why is he giving up now. He could write a book of his life, study for his masters, to name just two.

His mentor should be Stephen Hawkins, what the world would have lost if he had been euthenised.

Yes it was a terrible accident that happened, I feel a bit guilty saying this but he should stop feeling sorry for himself he can still leave a very productive life.

This thread raises an important theological question. Is a court a religious place, where the New Testament can be interpreted. In the New Testament a passage in Matthew 7 verse 7 says: Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, if only you will knock the door will be opened.

Mr Rossiter has asked that he be allowed to die. He has requested that the Hospice where he is on life support, stop feeding him. It is NOT Christian to refuse his request. His request is before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the court of the supreme being, one Almighty God whose Son Jesus Christ, wrote the Rules of court for His Fathers courts.

For centuries those in the know have organized their own deaths, as and when they saw fit. Paraplegics and quadriplegics, in motorized wheelchairs traumatize Sydney train drivers by rolling off platforms into the path of a train. Traindrivers are told to expect one of these at least once in their career. Poor Mr Rossiter is not able to take this way out.

The thing is they are not doing anything prohibited by the Holy Bible. If Mr Rossiter’s wish to die can be clearly ascertained by a court, then he should be granted that wish. Likewise it should not be a crime to grant him his dying wish. I will not bore you with a discourse on what is wrong with our current Courts, but in this case His will should be ascertained by a jury, and if a jury would not convict the Nursing Home, if it refused to feed him, than he can die in peace. The problem we have now is there has to be an alleged crime before a jury pontificates. There used to be feigned issues to settle disputes such as this with juries. This procedure should be resurrected and followed in this case. For a discussion on Feigned Issues, go here. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=479

Mr Rossiter’s lawyers should pursue this option

I'm a Christian and I support euthanasia. I support abortion for some reasons. Lifestyle choice isn't one of them, but who does?.

Where does it say anywhere in the article that the court decisions are based on religion?.

* I feel a bit guilty saying this but he should stop feeling sorry for himself he can still leave a very productive life.*

Ponde, well you should feel a bit guilty, for how on earth can
you ever imagine being in his shoes? Surely we are all different,
and its up to us to choose what we consider torture. I would
certainly see it as he does.

Stephen Hawking chooses to live, that his choice and his life.

Peter the believer, it's good to see that you as a Christian
take a different perspective to the Right to Life Association,
which I think are largely Catholics. Their spokesperson said
something on radio this morning, which was along the lines of
whatever the consequences for Mr Rossister, his request should
be denied. How on earth can these people claim to be compassionate?

None of them, could imagine how he feels right now, every day, day
after day, month after month. They are not in his shoes.
They are not civilised, they are more like barbarians IMHO.

I beleive we should be allowed to take our own life...

after all.. if things are so bad that we genuinely feel the need to

no one elses opinion is going to count for anything anyway.. and in all honesty.. what can the "Authorities" do to us?

Regarding assisted suicide.. so long as the assistant(s) have no beneficial interest in the death of the departed (eg under a will) I see no problem, assuming the suicidee has expressed permission in accepting their assistance.

I agree with some posters here. As rare as the situation presents itself for an individual, the counterpart to the right to life is the right to die as well. As long as it is a genuinely-held desire by the individual concerned, it should be binding. Marc Antony did it because, I imagine, his life wouldn't have been worth living as the vanquished potential Emperor. Or, he might just have been murdered in a much worse way (for him).

One of the reasons I disagree with abortion is because it's foisting the wishes of one person on another. Hardly a choice for the developing baby and just a form of murder.

Here's a research paper that appears fairly well rounded from what I've read so far. Interesting so far anyway.

Euthanasia - the Australian Law in an International Context

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RP/1996-97/97rp4.htm

This seems more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Sure the man should be allowed refuse food and medication like many others have done in the past.

It seems to me just like the dishonest death people used emotive rape cases in the abortion debate they are now using this poor man's situation to push their murderous dogmas. The death cults are not about compassion but demanding to be God.

I do disagree with Rob where he states 'As long as it is a genuinely-held desire by the individual concerned, it should be binding.'

Many a young boy or girl have had a genuine desire to die when they have broken up with their boy or girlfriend. Situations change.

Thanks runner your post proved yabbys point about religion, cruel interfering in things that are none of their business.
We have no right, none at all, to tell this bloke he must live.
If only SOME Christians truly did care he may not be forced to suffer a life in a hell of his own.

RobP:“I agree with some posters here. As rare as the situation presents itself for an individual, the counterpart to the right to life is the right to die as well….”

“…Hardly a choice for the developing baby and just a form of murder.”

In both situations Murder has my vote.

"Many a young boy or girl have had a genuine desire to die when they have broken up with their boy or girlfriend. Situations change."

runner, I'll squib a little here and say that a change of heart really means that a person does not have a genuine desire to die. Of course, the mind can play tricks on a person, so there could always be times when you really mean "no" when you think "yes" especially in one's dotage. Oops, that would not be a good way to go. It's confusing the more you think about all the possible permutations.

My mother has said that she would not like to be kept alive by artificial life support if she were seriously and chronically sick. Now, she's not for euthanasia, but for nature taking its course. That's the least controversial option and my preferred option, but it doesn't cover everyone's views and circumstances I suspect.

*Sure the man should be allowed refuse food and medication like many others have done in the past.*

Ah Runner, you are all heart. You don't mind if the man's only option
is to starve to death, over a number of weeks.

As it happens, he requested that, but the nursing home where he is
based, want to know their legal position, even the State Nurses
Federation agrees that State law is not clear.

The thought of making his exit a little easier, like we do with dogs
and cats for instance, goes way over your head it seems, such is
your compassion.

*Many a young boy or girl have had a genuine desire to die when they have broken up with their boy or girlfriend.*

What a silly comparison to this man's situation. They are like
chalk and cheese.

But there we have it of course. Some so called Xtians just want
their ticket to heaven. They lack even an ounce of empathy for
the suffering of others. Shame on you Runner, you are a disgrace
to your claimed religion

.

A MIND IN A JAR

.

I must confess that I do not know the details of this case. However, I do know that if one of my loved ones were in a similar situation, as I understand it, and he or she clearly expressed to me the wish to die, then I would arrange for this to be done in the best possible conditions available today wherever it may be on earth.

I would be most grateful if the reciprocal would apply provided my benefactor did not incur any risk of penal or other punitive action throughout the remainder of his or her life.

If that were against the principles of any god or gods, or some other supernatural being, whether real or imaginary, then I would obviously have to deal with that at some later stage and accept the consequences whatever they may be, as would my benefactor, unfortunately, if the reciprocal were to apply (but that would be his or her decision, not mine).

Please let me know if I have overlooked anything. I prefer to think about it now rather than to wait until the last minute.

.

suffering is wrong...for all athiest's know this is the only life they will have...i thank god im not in his position...dependance on others is a difficult thing to take

i really have no right to say anything..one way or the other..[so will let jesus speak 1 corinthians 3;16-22]...in the context of 1-3

1 Corinthians 3
1And I,..brethren,..could not speak unto you..as unto spiritual,..but as unto carnal,..even as unto babes in Christ.

2I have fed you with milk,..and not with meat:..for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,..neither yet now are ye able.

3For ye are yet carnal:..for whereas there is among you envying,..and strife,and divisions,..are ye not carnal,and walk as men?

13Every man's work shall be made manifest:for the day shall declare it,because it shall be revealed by fire;..[note fire =passion..consuming passion]..and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14If any man's work abide..which he hath built thereupon,..he shall receive a reward.

16Know ye not..that ye are..the temple of God,..

and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17If any man defile the temple of God,..him shall God destroy;..for the temple of God is holy,..which temple...ye are.!

18Let no man deceive himself...If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world,..let him become a fool,..that he may be wise.

19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God...For it is written,..He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20And again,..The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise,..that they are vain.

21Therefore let no man glory in men...For all things are your's;

22Whether Paul,or Apollos,or Cephas,or the world,..or life,or death,..or things present,or things to come;..all are your's

Runner,
When I was a child I went to Sunday school and when I grew older I left my faith because I realized that adults did not practise the Christianity that I was told about. Most were hypocrits.

If everybody really tried to be Christ like and followed his teachings we would have little world problems.

Some, like you, seem to lack the compassion that I think a Christian should feel and what, I think, the Christ I was told about would hold for others. Do you really think your Christ would condemn others to suffer?

I suggest you have a good hard look at yourself and your beliefs.

I do not profess to be of faith, but i reckon I am a far more compassionate person than you.

.

EUTHANASIA

.

My brother and I grew up with a dog called Nippy. Somebody left the gate open one day and a little pup just a few weeks old trotted in.

We called him Nippy because he was on our side when we got into fights with some of our cousins. He used to nip their backsides until they let us up.

When he grew up Nippy no longer had to wait until somebody opened the gate. He could jump over the fence. He was pretty smart too. One day the river broke its banks and there was a huge flood that came right through the house. Without anybody asking him Nippy swam around grabbing the chickens in his mouth rescuing them from drowning by putting them up on the roof of the hen house.

When I was twenty, Nippy had great difficulty getting around. He was old and tired and looked pretty miserable. He was half blind and couldn't hear too well either. So, one day, good old Uncle Roy, who had more or less inherited our dear childhood friend when my brother and I left home, decided that the time had come to put poor old Nippy out of his misery.

My brother and I greeted the news with heavy hearts but also with a profound feeling of relief. We dearly loved old Nippy and were very grateful to Uncle Roy for bravely taking Nippy to the vet to be picked. That was nearly a half a century ago, but I can still see that almost imperceptible glimmer in Nippy's eyes when we exchanged a final glance, like the glow of the last rays of the sun as it slowly sets over the horizon.

Nippy has been gone a long time now. Dear old Uncle Roy has too and I am afraid that, when my time comes, I will not be able to receive the benefit of the same loving compassion as Nippy.

When I look back on the life of Nippy, I think to myself that a dog's life is not so bad after all.

.

UOG has gone to great lengths to quote scripture for the rest of us to ignore…. The bit UOG just does not get is

His religious franchise.. the one he is signed up with

Is not the same as the rest of us so

Regardless of Corinthians or any other texts

Except for himself, his membership rules do not apply.

And runner… I can argue how the rights of the pregnant woman prevail over the rights of a fetus, without referencing the “emotive rape cases” and without reference to scripture.

Rob P – yes the choices of one are foisted on the other…

and I believe the one who gets to make that choice (the pregnant woman), should not be your limited to what you would "foist" upon her.

Banjo Paterson

Your story of Nippy, says all that need be said on this topic. Brought tears to my eyes. I have made posts on this topic on OLO many times in the past - from personal experience. I don't wish to repeat myself, therefore suffice to say that forcing people in situations like Christian Rossiter to live on, when they have clearly requested release, is nothing more than deliberate torture as Yabby has stated.

Col,

"Rob P – yes the choices of one are foisted on the other…

and I believe the one who gets to make that choice (the pregnant woman), should not be your limited to what you would "foist" upon her."

Just to clear the air on this issue once and for all (hopefully), I wouldn't call myself the foisting type at all. I'm saying that the practice of abortion is wrong.

What you can't see is your own contradiction. You call yourself a libertarian ad nauseum. Don't make decisions that affect the rights of others to make their own decisions in life, you implore. What you conveniently do is to truncate that principle to only apply to things that you can readily see. In other words, you're just following the political contours of the debate to, I suspect, continue to have a nice comfy life whilst preaching to people from your "superior" position. If you acknowledged that abortion was wrong, the whole edifice of your argument would fall apart. So you don't.

But you are right in the sense that the woman still has a will, will make decisions that are based on it, but will also suffer the consequences of any bad or wrong decision she makes.

What I am really saying is that it's better to have a guard rail at the top of the cliff than an ambulance at the bottom. I'm trying to do my bit to stop people from making a bad decision in the first place because, bit by bit, if unchecked it infects the whole of society including those that don't want any part in it.

Dear Yabby,

I wonder why this problem has been created. Since
the preservation of his life helps no one, and is
desired neither by him nor by those who love him
most dearly, why couldn't the doctors not be
content to let him die in peace and serenity?
Why does the medical profession pursue a vigorous
therapy that benefits no one except their own
satisfaction in thwarting death, regardless of the
consequences?

I don't know the answers to these questions.
All I can do is feel so sorry for the people
involved and pray that it won't be me further
down the track.

*Why does the medical profession pursue a vigorous
therapy that benefits no one except their own
satisfaction in thwarting death, regardless of the
consequences?*

Foxy, for the medical profession these days, much of
what they do, comes down to a legal question, due to
so many lawsuits etc. In a case like this, its about
criminal law. At what point will a doctor be charged
with aiding so called murder? Some doctors have
been charged before, so they have to be pretty careful
in what they do. That is why this particular nursing
home wants a clear legal position, before they do
anything.

The West Australian did a survey and found that 80%
of the population support voluntary euthanasia, but
the politicians won't touch it, as they know that the
other 20% still matter on election day.

Its not a vote swinger for most people, but it is for
those extremists who campaign against it, like the
Right to Life Association.

The NT tried to introduce voluntary euthanasia some years
ago, but Kevin Andrews cranked up the Federal Catholic
lobby, which is larger and more influental then many might
think and the NT legislation was sunk.

All very sad really, that they think its better to let a
bloke starve to death and still call themselves civilised.

Yabby is correct. I have been involved in the health care system for years and we have always been very careful about respecting some patients wishes.
On the one hand we have a terminally ill or hopelessly disabled patient begging us to be allowed to die, and on the other hand the law is saying no.

Mostly we get around this by respecting the patients wishes not to recieve treatment or nutrition. We simply supported them with medications to assist in relieving their symptoms while they died.

Those that refused food usually died within a month, while those that refused food and fluids usually died within one to two weeks.

These deaths were usually fairly peaceful if the person had no underlying disease causing them pain or other symptoms unrelieved by medications.
And herein lies the problem.

By law, we are not allowed to administer a lethal injection. If we do then we will be charged with murder.

So we watch these poor sods, who are in unrelieved pain, nausea and vomiting or bowel problems, take weeks to die slowly by starvation and thirst.
All the while, we have the patient, their relatives and friends all begging us to 'do something'. It is heartrending to watch.
Palliative care does not always work, although it has certainly come a long way.
I suggest we have all the opponents of legalised euthanasia work as carers in the hospices or homes where these patients are suffering.

Dear Yabby,

I agree with you. Lawyers blanch at the thought
of trying to draw up legislation to protect
people who, out of compassionate motives,
help others commit suicide. Some believe - as do
opponents of euthanasia - that such legislation
would be abused by people eager to push dying
relatives out of the way that the law should stay
as it is.

However, I feel that there must be some sort of
"safe" system of dispensing euthanasia that can
be written into law - and it's up to the
Parliamentarians - the law makers to ensure that it
is.

However, as you point out - at present our reps don't
hear pro-euthanasia crowds beating down the gates -
so they do nothing. What we need is a strong group
to lobby on behalf of those who want to die.

Governments are generally reluctant to push any
controversial legislation before the Parliament
of any nature unless there is a strong public
demand for it, or unless there is a strong public
benefit from it.

It's not enough that there's more noise provoked
from a hostile minority - there's got to be more
noise from an approving majority. Basically,
politicians are "wary," (I think) - of the Right to Life
movement.

What would of course embolden the MP's to cater
to that approving but almost mute majority would
be the support of the Australian Medical Association.
That support is so important because of the role
doctors would inevitably have to play if active
euthanasia became accepted. But the AMA has said
time and time again - "...it goes against what we're
all about!"

The basic duty of a doctor is to preserve life, not
end it. If the patient is terminally ill - all the doctor
can and should do (according to the Medical Association) -
is make the patient comfortable.

Why can't a doctor's role be more about preserving
dignity than life and in the end leaving it up to
the patient's right to choose?

I'm dreaming right?

Foxy

While I agree with much of what you have to say I believe that euthanasia is a private decision between doctor and patient, just as I do with abortion. These are personal life decisions which have nothing to do with politicians. I arrived at this opinion after hearing from the likes of Christopher Pyne and Tony Abbott who let their private beliefs dictate public policy when they were in power (there are probably similar Labor pollies as well, I am uncertain about Rudd who is very religious). The minimum of government intervention should be to decriminalise euthanasia, thus freeing a doctor to treat for pain and allow a patient to die with dignity.

I know you claim to be a Catholic, but to me you embody the original teachings and thoughts of Jesus or Buddha - without all the strings attached. That's it - a freethinker who can take the best of what religion has to offer without being tainted by doctrine.

Moondoggy, that's exactly what every opponent to voluntary euthanasia should do. Work for a little while with terminally ill people.

The fear of decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia is illogical as there is now enough data and information available from countries where euthanasia is allowed, like the Netherlands and since relatively recently Belgium.

For those who advocate vehemently that death should only occur 'naturally' have little concept of the effects of modern medicine, from those anti-hypertension tablets you take over years and years to aggressive intervention during an acute episode.

Besides that, it is not for another to dictate to another autonomous being how much, how long and in what form end of life suffering is acceptable

I generally support legalised, voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, under strict medical supervision ONLY.

But there's a big problem however with voluntary euthanasia. That problem is that a person's situation often changes over time. Generally I'm not talking here about terminally ill people, although even in this situation people still recover; it happens every day. Often depressed people, mentally ill people, displaced people and abused people wish to end their lives, but later on their circumstances often change. I believe these people should definitely NOT have the option of voluntary euthanasia. The only people who should have that option in my opinion are the terminally ill, and only after medical consultation, and only under strict medical supervision within the context of a legalised system of voluntary euthanasia.

Yes MaryE I agree that any legalised euthanasia should always be attended under strict medical supervision.

However, I have come across some very physically or mentally disabled people who may not necessarily be terminally ill as such, but for whom life is totally untenable for them.

Therefore I believe that all applicants for euthanasia should each be assessed on their own merit. Every case needs to be checked by both Physicians and Psychiatrists, who will then decide whether they are able to make that informed choice freely.
It should never involve any religious input unless the patient requests it.

This thread is about some one who is not mentally ill.
In fact his brain is the only part of his body that he has use off.
We should in all things, look only at what is not what may happen.
I doubt very much, we would ever see needless ending of life if we let people end such pain.
I can first hand, report Doctors, Nurses, thankfully with great love have been helping in these cases long before any of us existed.

RobP “Don't make decisions that affect the rights of others to make their own decisions in life,”

I am not making any decision. I am leaving the entire matter in the hands of those affected by the decision and not suggesting either the course of abortion or not is the correct option in any circumstance.

However, I do not assume responsibility for that decision nor authority for either making such a decision or demand to impose my limits on the options of others.

Regarding

“I suspect, continue to have a nice comfy life whilst preaching to people from your "superior" position.”

My position, as you call it, is quite humble, I leave everyone free to decide for themselves.

Actually, regarding my own position, the “superior” element is in the quality of the argument I bring to debate (not that I suspect you would necessarily agree).

The real “superior position” is that taken by people, with no involvement with the consequences of a decision, demanding to make it on behalf of other people they do not know and accept no responsibility for.

“If you acknowledged that abortion was wrong, the whole edifice of your argument would fall apart. So you don't.”

No, my argument stands. However, if you accept you have no responsibility for the actions of other cognitive human beings and thus no authority to deny them the right to sovereignty over their own body’s, your argument falls apart,

And your comment to guard rails is fallacious rubbish. A guard rail is there in case of accidents. It helps prevent but does not insure against accidents. We are not talking about accidental euthanasia or accidental suicide but intentional acts. You can put up lots of guard rails, wrap everyone in cotton wool and make them wear safety harnesses;

but some individuals, intent on a particular course, will remove their harnesses, discard the cotton wool, just climb over the rails and do their own thing anyway…

and they might be libertarians disillusioned with the waste of resources and limited personal liberty engendered by an all powerful, institutional nanny state..

Regarding “strict medical supervision” what a load of cobblers.

Doctors are not the sole arbiters of common sense.

Some doctors even object / refuse to offering unbiased assistance for abortions and others, like Shipman in UK, are over ready to assist, especially when he was going to get a slice from the estate.

Better euthanasia be assisted by anyone, acting in good faith and without a beneficial or material interest in the subjects estate (which I think I said previously),

Banjo writes

'I do not profess to be of faith, but i reckon I am a far more compassionate person than you.'

Typical of the crap that the left pushes. Murder the unborn but it is those who oppose it that lack compassion. It is those evil salvos and nuns who care for the age that is evil in their sight. Banjo you seem to know a lot about the hypocrisy you despise. I suspect you were also one crying over Corby as the media made her out to be the victim. Learn what true compassion is about before you start judging others.

Yeah runner, Banjo's a real lefty - so's Col.

Dear Fractelle,

Thank You for your kind words - although I'm not
sure that I deserve them. I don't have the answers
to the big questions in life. I'm still on my own
road to discovery. I've been incredibly lucky - but
everything is relative, everything has its own story;
and everyone has obstacles to overcome. They are our
greatest teachers. Every relationship is a gift - and
I've learned (and am still learning) so much from
people I've encountnered on my journey - including
people such as yourself on OLO. If someone asks me
what makes me happiest, it's never anything I can
quantify like a possession or something I can touch.
It's the spirit of the human being, which can fill me
with more joy than anything else in the world.

But enough said...

The right to die should be the patient's righ to choose.
The law should be decriminalised. I believe that if
society decided to accept euthanasia, legislation can be
drawn up with enough administrative safeguards to prevent
abuse.

Foxy

<< The right to die should be the patient's right to choose.
The law should be decriminalised. I believe that if
society decided to accept euthanasia, legislation can be
drawn up with enough administrative safeguards to prevent
abuse. >>

Exactly.

And it is not impossible nor difficult, all we need are politicians with sufficient compassion and the will. On second thought, maybe that is impossible and difficult...

* legislation can be
drawn up with enough administrative safeguards to prevent
abuse *

Foxy, I think that is going to be the key to it. I'm
the first person to resent Govt intrusion in our lives,
but I also understand what is holding this whole thing
up and thats the religious lobby and their slippery
slope argument, claiming we'd all be knocking off grandma
for the money.

The net result of that is that people continue to suffer
and nothing changes.

I'm hoping that the Rossiter case will highlight just how
much some are suffering, as many know who have worked in
the field and some have told us on this thread, from their
own experiences.

So perhaps some kind of compromise needs to be reached.
Perhaps some basic laws of direction, then a panel of
qualified people to review each case.

That would at least be progress over what we have now
and allay the fears of some, who are now holding up
any progress.

For politicians its not easy, they are dammed if they
do and dammed if they don't. So a compromise somewhere
in the middle, seems to me the way to go right now.
That's the only way this topic will be politically
acceptable in any way and right now it is not.

runner,
I truely am amazed at just how astute you are.

All the time I have been posting on OLO I have been keeping my REAL leanings secret and now you have blown my cover. No one else has picked up on that. I dips me lid to you.

Although my undercover work has been exposed, I am amused that many posters, may actually have had to take time out to clean up their monitors and keyboards after reading your revelations. That will give me chuckles for about a week.

Oh and CJM forgot to include Leigh in his list of lefties. Leigh will be offended, I'm sure.

"And your comment to guard rails is fallacious rubbish."

To you maybe, Col, but it's not to everybody. Your argument assumes that everybody has access to perfect information on the topic of abortion and that some girls and women who would otherwise not engage in the practice can't easily drift into the wrong crowd and do it through peer pressure. Putting a guard rail at the top of the cliff at least has the effect of protecting the people who wouldn't normally do it. Those who really want to, will jump the fence as you say, but the fence was never really built for their benefit anyway.

It's almost a waste of time arguing on this topic, what with your superior quality of argument and all. But if the TRUTH be known, abortion is a bad practice. And the bottom line is that you support it because it reinforces your overall libertarian argument. I guess that the real truth on this topic will be revealed when the Berlin Wall that divides the harder-line libertarians (and supporters) from the rest of us crumbles.

Col Rouge, you may not think Doctors are the sole arbitors of common sense, but they are the only ones at present legally able to prescribe any drugs that may be needed for euthanasia.

So, unless you plan to suggest other methods of euthanasia such as shooting, stabbing, poisons etc, then I suggest you deal with the fact that Doctors will need to be involved!

RobP, I am not a supporter of abortion as such, but I do support a womans right to choose.
No one, least of all an unrelated male, has any right to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy if she chooses not to.

It is rightfully legal to have an abortion and it should be decided between a woman, her partner and her Doctor.

The right-to-lifers should be turning their attention to improving contraception information and improved availability if they want to decrease the number of abortions.

Hello Col Rouge, my phrase "under strict medical supervision" is not a load of rubbish as you say. You have completely misunderstood it. By "under strict medical supervision" I was referring to the actual final act of taking one's own life. Despite what some would prefer to believe, the FACT is that some people botch their own euthanasia, and they end up suffering worse than ever. By having the actual act of "legalised" euthanasia performed by a medically qualified person, the chances of botching it are greatly reduced. Col, would you prefer euthanasia to be performed under the conditions of the old backyard abortions? No, I thought not. That's why it's important, in fact VITAL, that euthanasia be performed at a suitable location under strict medical supervision. Anything less shows a heartless disrespect for those terminally ill people who wish to take their own life. Thank you.

Hello belly, depression is a mental illness. Depressed people often make decisions that they wouldn't make when not depressed. Allowing a depressed person to commit euthanasia would show a disrespect towards that person. Thank you.

Dear Yabby,

The more publicity cases (like the one you've described
on this thread) receive - the more media attention is
generated, the more public support is obtained - MP's
may finally be forced to do something about the legislation.

We can only hope.

Personally I feel that the legislation will eventually
be decriminalised - the only question is - when?

Fingers-crossed it will be in my lifetime.
I would not like to be kept alive by machines once I've
lost my functional and mental independence.

Dear Fractelle,

As I wrote to Yabby - fingers-crossed that there
will be enough of a push from the public to
eventually force MPs into action. With an aging
population surely this is inevitable...

“By "under strict medical supervision" I was referring to the actual final act of taking one's own life. Despite what some would prefer to believe, the FACT is that some people botch their own euthanasia, and they end up suffering worse than ever. By having the actual act of "legalised" euthanasia performed by a medically qualified person, the chances of botching it are greatly reduced.”

Hi Mary, I am just wondering if it is really that complicated. Isn’t it usually done with the terminally ill by too much morphine and oops gone?

It is commonly done just not commonly discussed as a fact. I suspect your local drug addict could probably carry out the procedure with less fuss than many a doctor.

Now we have to think about the doctors themselves who might really be opposed to death since their profession usually battles it on all fronts?

I watched some thing awhile ago about English executioners and how it was passed down from father to son and no one really wanted to know them. We might not have advanced much further than that.

Now if that was my hubby I’d do it, of course I would be a bit hurt that chatting with me and doing nothing else for the rest of his life wasn’t enough but I’d do it.

Pied Piper wonders if it is all really so complicated that a Doctor is needed for euthanasing a patient.
Well, yes it is! In actual fact they do not use morphine to euthanase terminally ill people at present. Morphine is used for pain relief and it has a side effect of slowing down the breathing. Many people become 'used to' a certain level of morphine in their blood and pain then resurfaces. Thus, more morphine needs to be ordered and given to keep up effective pain relief.
As the terminally ill patient becomes weaker, the morphine relaxes them enough to allow their bodies to 'let go', and then they die, peacefully hopefully.
In any case, whether one uses morphine or any other drug to speed up the process, a Doctor must prescribe it for the patient before you can access the drug. Unless of course you want to get it off the black market and become a criminal.

Moon:”As the terminally ill patient becomes weaker, the morphine relaxes them enough to allow their bodies to 'let go', and then they die, peacefully hopefully.”

Yeah that’s what I just said. Or meant to say.

“In any case, whether one uses morphine or any other drug to speed up the process, a Doctor must prescribe it for the patient before you can access the drug.”

Understood, instead of paying the ferryman we will pay the doctor to get us to the other side.

"Unless of course you want to get it off the black market and become a criminal.”

Needs must when the devil drives.

Gee Pied Piper, so now the Medical profession are in on the whole euthanasia conspiracy are they, what with writing out death-drug scripts and all?
Going back to the original post about the quadruplegic at the Nursing home wanting to die,
I would say to all anti-euthanasia proponents that the issue at hand is a request for VOLUNTARY euthanasia to be legalised.
Anyone who unfortunately developes a terminal illness or an extreme disability can decide that they want to linger on and offer it all up for their God if that is their wish.
Please leave the rest of us alone to make our own decision without all the religious claptrap behind it.
This poor man should be given what he asks for- the right to stop all food and fluids, and to have a peaceful, painfree death.

If the man is suffering depression as a result of his situation, then it would be cruel and inhumane to take his life, whether or not he wanted it. Depression is a mental illness. If the man is of totally sound mind, then the choice should be his. Moondoggy, stopping all fluids and food does NOT result in a peaceful and pain free death. Without revealing my background, I've personally seen hundreds of deaths. Deaths later described by relatives and family as peaceful passings, and I know that they were anything BUT peaceful. In the last minutes of life many people suffer terrible, unimaginable pain and distress. I know, I've been there. Self euthanasia is very risky. Peaceful passings look great on the Hollywood screen where they just close their eys, turn their head and bingo, they're dead. Real life, or should I say real death, is usually quite different. You can almost feel their pain. It's not nice to see. Please people, don't romanticise death.

.

EUTHANASIA BIS

.

A well-to -do farmer in the Calvados in Normandy took a liking to Didier when he was fifteen and took him on as a rouseabout. He was a well-natured boy and a hard worker. He was grateful to his benefactor for giving him a chance in life.

Although he had left school at the age of thirteen Didier was intelligent and learned quickly. He soon knew all there was to know about raising horses and cattle and repairing the farm equipment. He earned a decent wage but had nothing much to spend it on. Board and lodging was provided on the farm. He put everything he earned into gradually building up his own livestock.

Didier became well known and respected in the local farming community where mutual aid was the rule. He was always willing to lend a helping hand if a neighbour was in need. If you were up all night in the paddock giving birth to a calf or a foal or stuck in a gully with your Jeep in the ice and snow and needed a tractor to pull you out, Didier was always there to help.

Didier had his first heart attack about a year after his father died. His dad had agonized with cancer for several long months on a hospital bed in the country before finally passing away. What struck me when Didier managed to find the courage and the words to talk about it, was his total incomprehension that the doctors had let his father suffer for so long when they knew it was hopeless.

“I would never have done that to a horse”, he said.

.

Hello Banjo Paterson, you write "the doctors had let his father suffer". It should be remembered that in a civilised society it should NEVER be up to the doctors to make a decision to withdraw treatment or perform euthanasia. I'm talking about a civilised society where euthanasia is legal. It should be the patient's choice. In this situation, his father would have had the choice to either battle on or to have a doctor perform euthanasia. Either way it would need to be the patient's choice. A patient's wishes can be documented well before death, or even well before hospitialisation. As soon as that choice is taken out of the hands of the patient, then society has no hope. Keeping in mind of course the grey area when someone has an accident, and right from the start can't communicate anything, and who has not previously documented his or her wishes; this situation could occupy an entirely different topic here as the intricacies are very complex.

MaryE,
I don't think anyone is romanticising death. I too have seen many deaths in my line of work. Yes, there have been many horrible deaths that could have been avoided if we had legal voluntary euthanasia.

I would imagine that anyone in his position would have some degree of depression. However, whether or not this guy has depression, he is living a horrible life. At present he has no other choice than to refuse food and water has he?

Better a couple of weeks of life without food or water, hopefully eased by plenty of medications, than the other alternative he has.

Hello suzeonline, by the term "romanticising death" I was referring to the fact that some people in society think that death is peaceful, I'm talking about the actual in the moment death itself. They "imagine" that euthanasia must be like this, peaceful and painless, just like the moment at death has often been depicted in Hollywood movies. The reality, more often than not, is quite different indeed. The pain and distress at the actual time of death can often be utterly horrendous and indescribable. It's impossible to predict which passing will be relatively pain free, and which one will not. Taking a life is a complex and risky business, and I desperately weep for the people who are currently left to do the act via their own hand. They deserve better. A medically supervised passing gives them the best chance by FAR for a less distressing and less painful passing. Unfortunately we're still a long way from legalised euthanasia in this country.

And yes suzeonline, he is living a horrible life, and if he is of sound mind then I think he should have the right to euthanasia. However, if he is depressed, then the depression can be treated. Noboby needs to suffer severely from permanent depression with the very effective drug treatments available these days. I think it would be awfully cruel to allow a severely depressed person to go under euthanasia. It's just as cruel as denying a person, who is of sound mind, access to euthanasia if that's what they want. If he's not depressed, or he was depressed but is now not depressed due to treatment, then he is probably of sound mind and should have the right to euthanasia. Now, maybe this man is of sound mind or maybe he isn't, maybe he's been depressed and maybe he hasn't, or maybe he's been treated for depression or maybe he hasn't been treated. Until we know the answers regarding this, then it's impossible for me (or anyone actually) to pass a truly informed judgment regarding this man's circumstances. One's heart goes out to this poor man.

“Gee Pied Piper, so now the Medical profession are in on the whole euthanasia conspiracy are they, what with writing out death-drug scripts and all?”

No – where did you get that from? But I was suggesting earlier that if we think about the doctors it may be unkind to place this burden on them.

“Going back to the original post about the quadruplegic at the Nursing home wanting to die,
I would say to all anti-euthanasia proponents that the issue at hand is a request for VOLUNTARY euthanasia to be legalised.”

Agreed. The big problem seems to be the legalizing as other forms of voluntary euthanasia are self-preformed and there is no emotional or legal recourse for a person that has decided they want to go and then committed suicide. See it will get to a point where someone will pass all the counseling, be declared by a shrink fit to make the decision and then at an autopsy will reveal a small tumor in the brain and the people who insist on life for others will point out how the person wasn’t in charge of their own decision at all.

“Anyone who unfortunately develops a terminal illness or an extreme disability can decide that they want to linger on and offer it all up for their God if that is their wish.”

Or anyone who is of sound mind and able body who has just had enough.

“Please leave the rest of us alone to make our own decision without all the religious claptrap behind it”.

In this case I don’t understand the religious people objecting… God isn’t keeping him alive, machines are.

“This poor man should be given what he asks for- the right to stop all food and fluids, and to have a peaceful, painfree death.”

No that sucks, if I was him I’d want to know about the next five minutes. He might have a date and time that he wishes to leave. The right to die should come with a few choices.

Piper

<< He might have a date and time that he wishes to leave. The right to die should come with a few choices. >>

Too right! There may be friends and family he wants around - and some he definitely doesn't. Music would be a consideration. For myself the Sex Pistols version of "I did it my way" is at the top of my list.

Would like the option of writing a 'will prequel' - how I would like to end my life if the end is nigh. For example, also into organ donation, provided I have anything left that might be useful and also able to declare myself an atheist so no religion gets to put in their 2 cents worth... Then it would all be mandated and no one could argue.

*A medically supervised passing gives them the best chance by FAR for a less distressing and less painful passing.*

MaryE, I completely agree with you here. Perhaps we could learn
something from the two organisations in Switzerland and their
experiences, to come up with our own Australian suitable version.

A friend of mine went through all this when her dad was just so
sick with cancer, in his 80s and decided it was time. IIRC
it was an organisation called Dignitas, but I would have to check.

She said that they came to the nursing home where he was located,
as he was really too sick to travel anywhere. The family were
present, she says it was all very tastefully done and a moving
experience for all.

Why we as a society think that it is better for people to hang on
until they gasp for their last breath, really beats me, when things
could be so different.

“Too right! There may be friends and family he wants around - and some he definitely doesn't. Music would be a consideration. For myself the Sex Pistols version of "I did it my way" is at the top of my list.

Would like the option of writing a 'will prequel' - how I would like to end my life if the end is nigh. For example, also into organ donation, provided I have anything left that might be useful and also able to declare myself an atheist so no religion gets to put in their 2 cents worth... Then it would all be mandated and no one could argue.”

Yeah good points Fractelle and important to be noted somewhere if you couldn’t talk or anything. I haven’t even updated my Will in 10 years – last thing it said was if my whole family is dead then all monies to be split between all foster kids ever in my care. Might shorten that to the Aussie ones now.

Really - The Sex Pistols one? So a gentle calm departure is in no way your plan of final exit.[smile]

I’d want to start with a good shot of pethadine or similar. Probably chose Leonard Cohen to accompany my drug induced end.

You remember Dirk though (Douglas Adams) and the theory that all gods exist and you end up with whichever one you choose after death? Invent a good one. And a laptop – mass e-mail all last thoughts, nothing like having the final say.

Body bits – yeah whichever to anyone that wants them and then I want vaporized.

You'd think if someone wanted to go via firing squad or something that should be allowed too.

Piper

I thought the Sex Pistols would be a good start, then as energy decreased then so too the music, yeah Leonard Cohen for sure - but which one? That'll keep me occupied for a while. Ooooh Monty Python, "Always look on the bright side of life"; Nick Cave, "The Weeping Song"?

<< You'd think if someone wanted to go via firing squad or something that should be allowed too. >>

As long as it is OK with the firing squad...

Twitter much easier than emails and a god of my own invention - well that would be me of course, modest thang that I am.

I'd just like to party on a bit first - keep up with the good drugs, may be even drop an eccy or two - its my party and I'll die if I want to. Hehe. I think I am getting a bit carried away now. Better stop.

Fractelle I like your style!

Pied Piper I agree that leaving the euthanasia up to Doctors may cause some of them considerable angst. Not to forget the Nurses they may delegate the task to.

I often wonder what would happen if the ill person asks their GP to assist them to die once it is legal to do so. What if that GP is personally opposed to euthanasia?

The Doctor may then refer that patient on to a Doctor who is known to practice euthanasia. Would that GP or Specialist then spend most of their time euthanasing all those patients that other Doctors have refused to assist? What an awful job.

While I am a proponent of euthanasia, there would have to be a lot of thought put into the process before it actually became legal.

“I thought the Sex Pistols would be a good start, then as energy decreased then so too the music, yeah Leonard Cohen for sure - but which one? That'll keep me occupied for a while. Ooooh Monty Python, "Always look on the bright side of life"; Nick Cave, "The Weeping Song"?”

Love Nick Cave. Yeah something from Murder Ballads album.

“As long as it is OK with the firing squad...”

Of course, even in death we should try not to upset anyone. Shot into space, maybe just for the rich.

“Twitter much easier than emails and a god of my own invention - well that would be me of course, modest thang that I am.”

I don’t understand Twitter, I tried, I failed, I left. I came back here.[smile]

““I'd just like to party on a bit first - keep up with the good drugs, may be even drop an eccy or two - its my party and I'll die if I want to. Hehe. I think I am getting a bit carried away now. Better stop.”

Oh me god, that bit was exactly like talking to my 17 year old. I think I need the foster kids or I’d probably get a bit carried away myself. As a teen I did everything bad and now and again I kind of miss it.

It has helped; I can spot bloodshot eyes at 100 feet and the movement of a jaw on E at 200. I can smell cannabis days after it’s gone and know exactly which flavor of alcohol made which stain.

And I have heard every dodgy excuse in the book for black eyes, fat lips, and swollen knuckles and how they managed to get on the wrong bus and therefore walked home 12 hours late even when I heard the car that stopped at the corner and the door slam.

Now if only I had a way to pass on the knowledge to others before I die.

*may be even drop an eccy or two*

Ah, that could explain the depression! As Susan Greenfield
notes in one of her books about the brain, whilst good
old eccy releases huge amounts of serotonin when you take
it, there is some evidence that it can damage the little
endings that produce the stuff. Low serotonin basically
equals depression.

Given that some on OLO think that I am a male chauvinist,
clearly I should take no notice of her opinion, given
that she is a female :)

Not so, she's a very smart lady, so has my respect.
I respect intelligence, not possession of sexual organs
of one type or another. Respect is earned, IMHO.

Suze:”While I am a proponent of euthanasia, there would have to be a lot of thought put into the process before it actually became legal.”
Oh imagine being known as a “Death Specialist”. A whole new genre of jokes would be created around it and new sayings.

“Pied Piper I agree that leaving the euthanasia up to Doctors may cause some of them considerable angst. Not to forget the Nurses they may delegate the task to.”

I’m guessing it would have to be one of those things (few as they may be) that they do not delegate to the nurses. But everything is in place, hospitals, drugs that kill at whatever dose, it is all easily doable if it does become law?

Is the main obstacle religion? Insurance companies? Lawyers – like if a family member or significant person was allowed to object/delay etc?

Yabby, it just started raining at my house.

.

EUTHANASIA TER

.

It must be more that ten years ago now that Peter, the elder brother of Michael, a very good friend of mine, came to visit me in my somewhat remote and secluded retreat. Their father was reputed to be one of Sydney's leading surgeons back in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Peter had followed in his father's footsteps and practised as an otolaryngologist (ear nose and throat specialist). About eighty percent of his patients were cancer sufferers.

We were having a quiet chat one warm summer evening sitting out on the terrace and I asked Peter what his thoughts were on euthanasia. He said that it was something he and his team were confronted with quite regularly and had learned to manage in a reasonably satisfactory manner for all concerned, the patients and their families in particular.

It was the first (and only) time I had actually heard somebody say that that he or she had practised euthanasia on a regular basis, that it appeared to be part of a certain type of specialist's normal activity, was accepted by all concerned and posed no particular problem.

When I expressed my surprise and asked what the legal position was on this in Australia, Peter simply replied that as long as the courts stayed out of it it was OK, that the worst thing that could happen would be for the lawyers to get involved.

I didn't press the point any further.

.

Pied Piper,
Nurses already administer drugs written up by Doctors for patients that are known to hasten their death, so I imagine it will all continue after euthanasia is made legal.

I have absolutely no doubt that the voluntary euthanasia bill is held up by those politicians with religious backgrounds and those without balls!

I believe it will also be a legal nightmare that the lawyers will make plenty of money out of.

If we could just get the 'Living Will' passed first.........

Suzeonline “but they are the only ones at present legally able to prescribe any drugs that may be needed for euthanasia.

So, unless you plan to suggest other methods of euthanasia such as shooting, stabbing, poisons etc, then I suggest you deal with the fact that Doctors will need to be involved!”

Hello suze… I see plenty of evidence of people able to access drugs of every type and description, uppers, downers, inners, outers and none obtained with a doctors prescription and then I also see prescription drugs misused… one I take could be used as an aid to a rapid demise but I am not so inclined to top myself, having a particularly good reason to retain this mortal coil.

So for me to “deal with the fact that Doctors will need to be involved” is simply more hypothetical rubbish and what I can only assume as a veiled attempt by the medical profession to maintain their monopoly on what they see as their exclusive mandate.

Come back when you can prove you have something which eliminates both illegal and misused drugs and you will have something to say, until then my point prevails.

MaryE “Hello Col Rouge, my phrase "under strict medical supervision" is not a load of rubbish as you say. You have completely misunderstood it. By "under strict medical supervision" I was referring to the actual final act of taking one's own life.”

I have misunderstood nothing and your attempt to obfuscate the issue will not work.

I too meant “I was referring to the actual final act of taking one's own life.”

Every day, some people take their own life, without any medical supervision what so ever..

we call it “suicide”

care for another attempt?

Hello Col Rouge, here's some what you wrote "Regarding 'strict medical supervision' what a load of cobblers. Doctors are not the sole arbiters of common sense...... Some doctors even object/refuse to offering unbiased assistance for abortions....... Better euthanasia be assisted by anyone......".

Now Col, I made no assertion whatsoever that doctors were the "sole arbiters" of common sense. It was not even implied. My initial comment was that when a person goes under euthanasia it's best to do so under strict medical supervision. But it's a fact, whether you like it or not, that trained doctors are generally better qualified to administer euthanasia procedures than the suffering person who wants to die. In an ideal world euthanasia would be legal for those of sound mind who are terminally ill, and my comment "under strict medical supervision" referred to the legal administration of euthanasia techniques to the patient by a suitably trained and qualified doctor, at a suitable location, and under a system where euthanasia was legal. Backyard abortions back in the bad old days were horrific, just as people now self administering euthanasia is also horrific (or having it administered by family/friends) Trust me Col, you don't want to botch a euthanasia attempt, the results are often not pretty. People deserve sympathy and respect. To have it administered by "anyone", as you have suggested, as long as they're "acting in good faith and without a beneficial or material interest in the subject's estate" shows a horrible lack of respect towards those who are suffering terminal illness. Nobody, in their right mind, would say that "anyone" is preferable to a trained medical professional supplying strict medical supervision for a person's euthanasia. Col, think of the sufferers. All serious medical procedures that relate to life/death issues need to be performed "under strict medical supervision" if best and safest outcomes are desired. Now Col, if you don't like that, or approve of that, then so be it. And please cut the sarcasm, it only makes you look juvenile, and says more about you than the people you target it at Thank you.

Well said MaryE. I didn't realise we were talking about suicide here Col. My mistake and sorry for daring to defend the medical profession as being the most appropriate for dealing with euthanasia when it is made legal. I will make any point I want to on this debate Col, whether you like it or not.

I once knew this lady who was diagnosed with a terminal illness and decided to euthanase herself. She took a couple of packets of a well known analgesic. Instead of dying from her original disease, she died very slowly and painfully of liver failure.
It was a much worse death than if she had waited for the terminal illness to claim her.

There are very many other stories like this one of botched jobs that could be avoided if euthanasia was legal.
As for the suicides by depressed people, these will not cease until we have a more effective mental health system.

Really interesting thread. More enjoyable than some of the others on OLO.

For an excellent start at legislation to allow voluntary euthanasia look at the Northern Territory one, that was hijacked by the religious movers and shakers in the previous federal government. It is a rather good start and when reading the eventual legislation now in place in the Netherlands it obviously must have assisted in the wording and shaping of their laws. The law in the Netherlands was enacted after the NT.

In the Netherlands the use of this legislation is under very frequent scrutiny. Especially whenever a 'loophole' appears to have been found or questions arise on whether it should be available to those who want to die, but are not 'terminally' ill.

As in the case of mental illness. It is a bit glib MaryE to suggest that modern medicine is always of benefit, or alleviates, mental illness for all sufferers. This is manifestly untrue. Mental illness is not just something that requires a pill, some counseling and a group hug. It is not remotedly like, say hypertension or diabetes.

As to 'romanticising death'. Who in their right mind would do that? There is nothing 'romantic' about 'life' either. Like there is nothing 'romantic' about birth. Death follows life. A bit of extra 'life' will not make the fact of death any more or less romantic.

This issue is about who has the right to determine end of life decisions. Those who are actually facing their OWN end of life, their own death, or others who are not but somehow know better?

As Banjo related, these end of life decisions are being played out all over the country. Unfortunately, tragically and horrendously, this is done secretly and covertly in this country. You are NOT able to discuss this freely and openly with anybody. Not even your own doctor, unless you somehow know what his/her position is. It will always be clouded in the most ridiculous semantic talk. Those most important to you, may or not be present.

MaryE “And please cut the sarcasm, it only makes you look juvenile, and says more about you than the people you target it at Thank you.”

“Sarcasm” is my natural response to being patronized… if it offends you I suggest you structure your posts in a less patronizing way.

Suzeonline “I will make any point I want to on this debate Col, whether you like it or not.”

Make whatever points you wish suzeonline…

Just remember, I too claim the same right as yourself,

regardless of how “precious” you think your view is.

suzeonline “....euthanasia was legal.
As for the suicides....”

Will someone please explain to me the difference between:

“(Voluntary) Euthanasia”

And

“Suicide”

Because, for the life (oh how ironic a word to use) of me,

I am at a loss to distinguish the difference.

ColR - Voluntary euthanasia is someone being assisted to die by someone else, while suicide is killing yourself with no help from anyone else. Simple really.

Hello Anansi, at no stage did I write or imply that "modern medicine is always of benefit or alleviates mental illness for all sufferers". There are many medical techniques these days, both with and without drugs (depending on the patient and circumstances), that can help relieve depression for a great many people. Many people can get quite quick relief while many more get relief after many months or years of effort. Some people never get relief, no matter what they try. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is simple and easy regarding mental illness. People have "romanticised" death on this topic. By "romanticised" (I've explained this previously) I mean they think that death via self administered euthanasia is peaceful and calm, just like the deaths you see on some of the old Hollywood movies where people gently close their eyes , softly turn their head and bingo! They're dead. I've seen hundreds of deaths first hand. The act of death is almost always NOT like the romanticised Hollywood version. A botched euthanasia attempt can EASILY result in a death that is horrendously painful, drawn out and distressing for the person attempting it. With a medical presence, within the context of legalised euthanasia, and at a suitable location, the chances of a botched euthanasia attempt are GREATLY reduced. That's one of the reasons why I fully support legalised euthanasia for terminally ill patients. Thank you.

The current practice of withdrawing treatment and/or food and water is quite cruel. It's kind of like euthanasia via the backdoor. However, it's often not as cruel as letting the terminally ill patient go through with their illness until a natural death occurs. That's why treatment etc is withdrawn. This happens almost everyday in many Australian hospitals. Both the withdrawal of treatment, and letting nature take it's course, are cruel. If the patient prefers either of these two things, then the patient's will must prevail.

I believe the answer is legalised euthanasia for the terminally ill. It must be SOLELY the patient's choice, with extremely strict guidelines in place. The patient must be of sound mind. The euthanasia must happen under appropriate medical supervision. I repeat, for the terminally ill ONLY. I see this as the most humane alternative, but no matter how the patient leaves this world, it should be the patient's choice. Right now, they are inhumanely denied the choice of legalised euthanasia for the terminally ill.

Hello Col Rouge, your sarcasm doesn't offend me one tiny little bit. I pointed out that it makes you appear juvenile and that it probably reflects on you more than the people you target it at, because I feel it's a bit sad that someone has the need to be so rude to people. Maybe if you try to be a bit nicer towards people who disagree with you, it'll make you feel a bit better about yourself. I've found in life that often when people abuse others they are actually crying out for help without realising it. I wish you well Col, and don't forget that thinking about the feelings of others is an aid to communication, not an impediment. But then again, I've found on this site that quite a few people aren't interested in communication, they're more interested in having their opinion dominate. Thank you.

It looks like common sense has won out

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/14/2656648.htm?section=justin

Hello RobP, commonsense has not won out. That judgement has opened the way for that poor man to die a drawnout, painful and horrible death. Yes, the death, if he chooses it, will be a lot less drawnout, painful and horrible than his previous alternative. But either way, he is destined to suffer horribly. To die of starvation and thirst is a nasty, horrible way to die. There's nothing peaceful about it, despite the drugs that will be given. There's a good chance his actual moment of death will be hoffific and painful. He deserves better. I would classify people in his hopeless situation in the same way I'd classify the terminally ill. He deserves to have the right to access medically administered euthanasia under a legalised euthanasia system. That gives him the best chance to experience a quick, pain free death, if that is what he chooses. The 2 choices he has now, to live on in pain, misery and hopelessness or to die a horrible death via starvation/thirst, are 2 awful choices. One's heart goes out to this poor man. Thank you.

Good Evening everyone,

I've just heard the news on television about
the Rossiter case. The Courts in WA have set
a precedent - of finally allowing this man
the right to die - as he wishes. However, not
by putting him to sleep painlessly - but by
allowing the medical staff to stop feeding him.
That is, allowing him to starve to death.
Which, as another poster pointed out - is
an agonizing way to die.

It's the compromise that was acceptable to them
in WA. My heart goes out to the man and his family
and friends. As do my prayers.

MaryE,

I see your point - I meant it was common sense to the extent that he would no longer be lingering around in a body that made his life not worth living.

Does Christian Rossiter actually want to take a drug to end his life? I can't remember that being reported.

As an afterthought - and I don't mean to misleadingly wave a carrot in the air here - but what if there is a palliative solution found or even a way of repairing his paralysis in his life time?

RobP

<< but what if there is a palliative solution found or even a way of repairing his paralysis in his life time? >>

How long is a life-time?

"How long is a life-time?"

In his case, the amount of time he is prepared to wait, I suspect.

RobP

Then Christian Rossiter has already made his wishes clear.

My wish is that the medical staff can quietly administer assistance of the most humane kind.

Fractelle,

I said what I did based on the following extract from the webpage I posted above.

>>He says he could still be persuaded not to end his life.

"I'm asking for further advice from an experienced palliative care doctor," he said.

"After I speak to a medical professional - he could persuade me. I have to seek advice. There's a possibility that I could still be persuaded [to accept food]."<<

If what's reported is true, the ball is still in his court.

RobP

It is still Mr Rossiter's choice. Not yours.

Accept it.

Hello RobP, you make a very poignant point when you write " but what if there is a palliative solution found or even a way of repairing his paralysis in his life time?". I feel that therein lies the "moral" conundrum. Regarding this man, chances are almost certain that a palliative solution or cure will not be found anytime soon. But what "if"? I guess society, and the patient involved, must weigh up the odds and act accordingly. Of course if one is opposed to euthanasia on moral or religious grounds, then the odds have no bearing on anything for them. I believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that nobody has a right to force that opinion on others, my opinion included. For me, the problem with religious opposition to euthanasia is that they wish to force the entire population, via law, to conform to their moral standards regarding euthanasia. Thanks.

Mary:”I feel that therein lies the "moral" conundrum. Regarding this man, chances are almost certain that a palliative solution or cure will not be found anytime soon. But what "if"?”

He wouldn’t know so not likely to be looking down on creation going “oh bugger”.

He could always volunteer for a brain transplant operation; a gamble with nothing to lose.

Hello TPP. If he chose to live, and he says he still might, then he WOULD know if better palliative care became available or if a cure was found. Also, is the brain transplant comment supposed to be some kind of joke? Did you understand what I meant by "moral conundrum" as it applies to this situation? Thank you.

*For me, the problem with religious opposition to euthanasia is that they wish to force the entire population, via law, to conform to their moral standards regarding euthanasia*

Mary E, I completely agree with you.

What the WA supreme court has found is that we can choose to
starve ourselves to death and the palliative care staff won't be
held liable. The court could not decide on any kind of euthanasia,
as the legal framework for that is lacking.

What is lacking here is community outrage, only that will change
public opinion.

So we really have an incredible double standard here, due to the
small but noisy religious lobby.

If I had a really crook dog and publicly announced that as it was
terminally ill, it was best that I let it starve to death, the
RSPCA would be here tomorrow, for good reasons. Yet we seemingly
accept this as a fate for humans, when there would be so many
possible humane and dignified options.

This is was blows me away. That we let the religious lobby so interfere
with our lives, that we are seemingly accepting this,
without huge outrage at their interference, for very few of us
actually agree with them.

The religious lobby is doing exactly what every other lobby group does, including the lobby that's pro euthanasia: Everybody want's THEIR morality to prevail, and for it to be enshrined in law. The religious lobby sees euthanasia as suicide/murder, and the pro euthanasia lobby sees euthanasia as humane, welcome relief. So no matter what happens to the law of the land, one side will always genuinely feel an outrageous wrong has been perpetrated in the name of the law. I feel there is no solution, and for as long as people are different there will always be conflict on this matter, regardless of what any law may state.

*Everybody want's THEIR morality to prevail, and for it to be enshrined in law.*

Ah Mary E, but our legal system should be based on substantiated
evidence, most of it is. On that basis, morality is simply our
opinion and no more. There is no substantiated evidence for any kind
of objective morality, as is claimed by the religious. It is purely
their belief, no more.

They are of course free to believe whatever they want, but I can't
see how they should have the right to enforce that opinion on the
rest of us legally, given it is just a belief and no more.

I give them credit for great lobbying, nobody does it better then
the Catholic Church. If those Catholic politicians don't rally
around in times like this, perhaps they might not get that promised
ticket to heaven!

Only public outrage will change that kind of mindset, only then
will our politicians sit up and take notice of public opinion.

Mary:”Hello TPP. If he chose to live, and he says he still might, then he WOULD know if better palliative care became available or if a cure was found. Also, is the brain transplant comment supposed to be some kind of joke? Did you understand what I meant by "moral conundrum" as it applies to this situation? Thank you.”

Evening Mary, he would know about all of that but I thought he had decided he wanted to leave?

The brain transplant; I actually thought it one of my good ideas, take a chance, help science in the process. And if it works he is cured, if not he gets his wish.

I got that conundrum means “puzzle” – nah seriously have no idea what you meant. I’m going to go stand in the corner with Examinator.

But first! My thoughts on the god squad, they really do feel that if you choose to leave you will not get to heaven, they really really are trying to help because of their beliefs. Annoying that it is that we cannot convince them we are right they are talked about as if they come from some wish to inflict cruelty on other humans and I don’t think they do; I think the opposite is true. I to wish they would shut up but hey that also goes back to “what if?”.

Now how pathetic are all of we that cannot win because the religious are more committed, try harder, have their collective faith.

Hang on Examinator baby I’m on my way!

Mary, apologies if I misunderstood you on mental illness. I have participated at times in the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of legislating for voluntary euthanasia and a frustration of mine is that there's almost always somebody who thinks it's just a simple matter of somebody being depressed and that's why they are asking for assistance to die.

Though strictly speaking voluntary euthanasia is assisted suicide, the term suicide we necessarily associate with the extreme result of depression. It is weighed with great emotion and a sense of helplessness to those left. Suicide is a real and dreadful issue in our communities. That's why I think it is very important to make the distinction between a request for voluntary euthanasia to hasten death due to a terminal illness and somebody committing suicide because of a *feeling* of utter hopelessness.

In our society the majority of us have no direct personal contact with death and dying. It is mostly sanitized by being tucked away in hospitals. Death is only seen as an enemy to be avoided at all costs for as long as possible, so somebody seeking it makes us uncomfortable.

Like you, I have had direct experience of death and dying. I'm a bit curious as to your descriptions of death. I seem to find it a lot less disturbing than what I think how you describe it. Between you and me, the struggle of birth (for both baby and mother) is not a cake walk or anything romantic whatsoever, but we seem to accept that as an OK struggle.

Reading your posts we seem to agree very much on this subject

Mr Rossiter's case is interesting in that even in the Netherlands it would be a difficult situation. He is paralyzed, but death is not imminent and unavoidable. Though, he would have every right to refuse food and fluids, but not to be actively assisted to hasten death.

"It is still Mr Rossiter's choice. Not yours. Accept it."

I absolutely accept that it's his choice, Fractelle. That's exactly what I've been saying. What is not clear from his own comments in the transcript I quoted is what his final decision is.

.

FREE TO CHOOSE

.

Now that society has authorized Mr Rossiter to choose whether he prefers to live or to die, I beg to raise the question as to whether he is free to choose or not.

What degree of control, if any, do we as individuals have on what we think and believe? To what extent are we independent of the ideas and beliefs to which we have been exposed since our birth? Are we truly free to choose or are we constantly being "assisted" one way or another, perhaps unconsciously?

And when the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils, what sort of freedom is that?

How can the so-called "inalienable" individual human rights apply if we have doubts about the freedom of individual choice?

Some would have us believe that there are objective responses to all those questions. However, I suspect that it is only when we are faced with cruel reality, like Mr Rossiter, that each of us becomes capable of revealing his true identity, including to himself.

.