.

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.