On Wednesday last week, a disturbing motion from Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm passed the Senate. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1030


As a result, his new bill will be debated in the Senate between August 14 and 16. The Restoring Territory (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill would allow the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory to create euthanasia and assisted suicide laws. Should it pass the Senate, Greens MP Adam Bandt has promised to sponsor the Bill in the House of Representatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwZSIY8Ozi4

//The Restoring Territory (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill would allow the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory to create euthanasia and assisted suicide laws.//

I don't see a problem with that; it's not fair if the States can make their own euthanasia laws but the Territories can't.

This man at least in part, owes his election to miss use of another party's name, he mines for redneck voters with just filthy comments, he on his own, justifies my view the upper house is a rats nest, yet I support this bill, let my body die before my brain does, before I become another victim of the prisons we call aged care

Dear Josephus,

Euthanasia is such an emotive issue.

I am so glad that I've never been asked to make a
decision on this matter. I hope that I will never
have to either. It would be a very difficult
thing for most people to do. The only time that I
may seriously contemplate thinking about doing
anything would be in the case of a terminally ill
person who was in tremendous pain and keeping them
alive would achieve nothing but prolong their suffering.

But who knows - I may change my mind as I get older.

Josephus,

Yes, it is a disturbing motion. However, this comes out of Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm's libertarian world view: "People should be free to make their own choices and accept responsibility for the consequences, so long as nobody else is harmed".

By the way, former Labor opposition leader, Mark Latham, now has joined the Liberal Democrats.

We've been down this road several times before. For example, in 2008 with the Bill sponsored by Greens' leader, Senator Bob Brown <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2008B00219>

There were 1871 submissions. See: <https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/terminally_ill/submissions/sublist>

Fortunately, the Bill was defeated. Australia has 3 territories: NT, ACT, and Norfolk Island.

There are good reasons to reject voluntary, active euthanasia through the repeal of the Territories' legislation.

In my understanding, the case for euthanasia is based on the following:

* Intentionally killing or assisting in the killing of innocent human beings.

* Repudiation of the doctor-patient relationship that is meant to promote life.

* It flies in the face of the medical advances made in the treatment of pain and is at odds with compassionate methods of care.

* It does not fully consider the historical examples that show euthanasia cannot be legislatively controlled (e.g. Holland).

* It rests on presuppositions that do not respect human life.

* It plays God.

* Human beings are not animals, but unique beings made in the image of God.

* Ethically, it rests on self-defeating assertions.

* It is not in the patient's or society's best interests.

* It eliminates the sufferer rather than treating the suffering.

* Opinion polls are an unreliable indicator of support for euthanasia.

For an exposition of these points, see my submission to the 2008 Bill, number 386, at: <http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008_10/terminally_ill/submissions/sub386_pdf.ashx>

Therefore, I urge the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia not to support repealing this legislation and extending the scope for endorsing euthanasia.

Quite frankly my view will be confronting for most, but it remains my conviction,if my brain went finance becomes a player in my view about the subject, see I alone in my large family own a home, and my intention to pass it on,is firm, not to have it sold to fund a term I would not even be aware of, in a Prison we shamefully call old age care centers becomes the driver

Unfortunately, that link does not work from my post. Although this document has no heading, please check out submission 386 at:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2008-10/terminally_ill/submissions/sublist

The Bill is unlikely to pass in the lower house, and even if it did, so what? We are talking about VOLUNTARY euthanasia here, not killing people willy nilly.

//However, this comes out of Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm's libertarian world view: "People should be free to make their own choices and accept responsibility for the consequences, so long as nobody else is harmed".//

That's not a libertarian world view, that is classic liberal philosophy. The philosophy of such notaries as Locke, Mill, Jefferson and Menzies.

Just because the Liberal Democrats are nuts, it doesn't discredit the long and proud tradition of liberalism any more than despots affixing 'Democratic' in front of a countries name discredits democracy.

But I'm guessing you're more of Burke & Hobbes guy than a fan of Mill.

//Australia has 3 territories: NT, ACT, and Norfolk Island.//

No, Australia 10 Territories (not all inhabited). On the mainland are the 3 'internal Territories': NT, ACT and JBT (Jervis Bay Territory). JBT is administered as if it were part of the ACT, but it's technically a separate Territory. The 7 external Territories are Ashmore & Cartier Islands, Heard & McDonald Islands, Coral Sea Islands (all uninhabited); Australian Antarctic Territory, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island and Norfolk Island.

//There are good reasons to reject voluntary, active euthanasia through the repeal of the Territories' legislation.//

There may well be good arguments against euthanasia, but I think you're rather missing the point. The point is whether or not the Territories should be free to make their own laws in the same way that the States can. The ACT and NT are both referred to as 'self-governing Territories', but there have been numerous cases where the Federal government has overruled legislation introduced by the democratically elected governments of these so-called 'self-governing Territories'.

Is it OK for the Federal Government to only pay lip-service to the idea of self-governing Territories, whilst in practice denying them self-governance? That's the crux of the issue.

ttbn,

<<The Bill is unlikely to pass in the lower house, and even if it did, so what? We are talking about VOLUNTARY euthanasia here, not killing people willy nilly.>>

Don't you understand the seriousness to families and societies when a nation legalises voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide? I'll let retired anaesthetist and palliative care physician at Concord Hospital, Sydney, Dr. Brian Pollard speak. He wrote 'Why voluntary safe euthanasia is a myth' (Quadrant, 1 January 2011 online: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/01-02/why-safe-voluntary-euthanasia-is-a-myth/).

Dr. John Keown, Director of the Centre for Health Care Law, in the Faculty of Law in the University of Leicester, U.K., completed a research project on euthanasia in Holland. He concludes:

<<"It appears that the overwhelming majority of cases are falsely certified as death by natural causes and are never reported or investigated... It is clear from the evidence set out [in Keown's research] that all that is known with certainty in the Netherlands is that euthanasia is being practised on a scale vastly exceeding the 'known' (truthfully reported and recorded) cases. There is little sense in which it can be said, in any of its forms, to be under control">> (I.J. Keown, "The Law and Practice of Euthanasia in The Netherlands", in The Law Quarterly Review, 108, January 1992, pp. 67, 78).

John Keown's further research in The Netherlands found:

<<It appears that the overwhelming majority of cases are falsely certified as death by natural causes and are never reported or investigated.... It is clear from the evidence set out. In over half these cases, the decision was discussed with the patient or the patient had previously indicated his wish for the hastening of death, but in "several hundred cases there was no discussion with the patient and there also was no known wish from the patient for hastening the end of life">> '(Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Sliding Down the Slippery Slope', Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 1 Jan 2012, vol 9, issue 2, available at: (<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2150/e78bb1116698de8e3906dc57073d4d2c9168.pdf >)

The evidence points to whenever euthanasia is legislated it cannot be controlled in practice.

I'm in favour of it, we are told from childhood that we are responsible for our own lives and killing one's self is part of that responsibility.

Is Mise,

<<I'm in favour of it, we are told from childhood that we are responsible for our own lives and killing one's self is part of that responsibility>>

Are you saying or inferring from childhood your parents told you that you are responsible for your own behaviour and that includes suicide? If you want to kill yourself at any age, go ahead. It's your choice and if that's what you want to do, who are we as parents to stop you? We won't stop you.

So, if you wanted to kill yourself at age 16, without a terminal illness, you would agree with that view of responsibility and freedom that was taught to you by your parents?

Toni Lavis,

<<That's not a libertarian world view, that is classic liberal philosophy. The philosophy of such notaries as Locke, Mill, Jefferson and Menzies. >>

Both of us are correct.

Take a read of the beginning of this article::

<<The LDP states that it adheres to classical liberal, small government and laissez-faire principles coupled with what the party considers as a high regard for individual freedom and individual responsibility. The party's policies are influenced by those of the Libertarian Party (United States).>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Australia)

The ideology of the Liberal Democrats is:
* Classical liberalism
* Libertarianism
* Fiscal conservatism

What is its international affiliation? It is with the “International Alliance of Libertarian Parties”.

Of me, you state: <<There may well be good arguments against euthanasia, but I think you're rather missing the point. The point is whether or not the Territories should be free to make their own laws in the same way that the States can.>>

The title of this thread is ‘Euthanasia’; it is NOT, ‘The Territories vs States with euthanasia laws’.

There are reasons why Australia has this administrative situation of Territories not having the same powers as the States:

(1) That’s how the Australian Constitution of 1901, section 107, declared the difference. Why?

(2) Circumstances at the time of 1901 and the formation of the Constitution.

An ABC News, Brisbane Qld, investigation (28 Feb 2018) reported that the NT was originally part of SA but "by the time it got to 1911, the SA government was in debt because of the NT to the tune of something like £4 million, so they were very keen to get rid of it," Mr Parish said.

Ken Parish is a former NT Labor politician and senior law lecturer at Charles Darwin University.

SA surrendered the Territory to the Commonwealth.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-27/why-isnt-the-northern-territory-a-state-curious-darwin/9457776

The statehood vs territory issues have been keenly debated. The NT referendum for statehood in 1998 was supported by the NT Country Liberal Party and its federal equivalent, but was opposed by the Labor Party. The result was a narrow defeat, 51.9% - 48.1%.

(3) Population distribution.

The authoritarian state should keep is snout out of this area and allow people to make up their own minds. It is a personal matter, not something to be decided by tin pot dictators of the kind infesting Australian politics. They can't even manage a good job of preventing people from killing other people. They have no business dictating what people will do with their own lives.

ttbn,

Describing Australia as 'the authoritarian state' with 'tin pot dictators', are you comparing Australian leadership with that by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gorbachev, and Kim Jon-un?

<<They can't even manage a good job of preventing people from killing other people>>

Do you really want govt. learning how to manage sinful people who do wicked sinful actions? What should the govt do to stop murder?

<<They [govt folks] have no business dictating what people will do with their own lives.>>

Do you think this personal philosophy of yours should be applied across the board for all people?

OzSpen,

"I'm in favour of it, we are told from childhood that we are responsible for our own lives and killing one's self is part of that responsibility"

The Operative verb above is "told" not "taught".

One thing I can say for sure, I want no Church, no God, [who I do not believe ever existed], [put all Gods there] to tell me at any time what I can or can not do

//Both of us are correct.//

It would appear so.

But to try and insinuate that liberalism is bunk because D1ckhead Dave and Mad Mark are in favour is an ad hominem fallacy. It's like saying that vegetarianism is wrong because Hitler was vegetarian.

It also has elements of a strawman fallacy. D1ckhead Dave and Mad Mark are such low-hanging fruit they're practically subterranean. If you want to have a crack at liberalism, you'll have to do a bit better than pointing to a pair of well known crackpots and declaring 'Look, those pair are both clowns and they favour liberalism. I rest my case.'

//The title of this thread is ‘Euthanasia’; it is NOT, ‘The Territories vs States with euthanasia laws’.//

I think technically yo'll find that the title of this thread is 'Euthenasia', which according to my abridged Oxford is not actually a word.

But if you have a look at the Bill Josephus linked to in the original post, I'll think you'll find that its title is the 'Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015'.

And you want to tell me this matter has nothing do with Territories right to self-governance? Sure, buddy. And I'm a turnip. [sarcasm]

Belly,

<<One thing I can say for sure, I want no Church, no God, [who I do not believe ever existed], [put all Gods there] to tell me at any time what I can or can not do>>

One minute after your last breath you will meet Him and suffer His eternal consequences:

** 'And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment' (Hebrews 9:27).

** God does not believe in atheists / agnostics. God says they don't exist; some human beings want to hide from God under the guise of 'I do not believe God ever existed'. God states that ...

** 'They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God' (Romans 1:19-20).

You can deny God's existence, but He will have no bar of it. You will be without excuse when you meet him 1 minute after your last breath.

There are many in the world, including yourself, who want to deny God's existence. God tells why they can't or don't want to understand His existence:

** 'God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness' (Romans 1:18). This applies to all atheists / agnostics - the truth of the existence of God is suppressed because of the wickedness of their actions and thoughts. Their wickedness, prevents the truth of God's existence from being known.

So you don't want God to tell you what you can and cannot do. Does that mean you choose whatever ethical actions you want out of your own autonomous will?

Toni,

You must think I'm a dill with a comment like this: <<I think technically yo'll (sic) find that the title of this thread is 'Euthenasia', which according to my abridged Oxford is not actually a word>>

You and I know that 'Euthenasia' was a typo. The thread has dealt with the pros and cons of euthanasia.

I think we are spinning the wheels. I'm out of here. Bye!

//You must think I'm a dill with a comment like this//

Hmm, no thoughts on liberalism then? Funny, you seemed so against it before... glad to see you've conceded that point.

And nothing to say about how Territory rights might be pertinent to a discussion about the 'Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015'?

It's not what you'd call a convincing rebuttal, is it?

Oz Spen - why does religion advocate a violent, punishing god - after claiming that god is love? Why is threat, shame and fear the foundation of religion? Why does it's adherents think they have a right to threaten others? How is that spiritual? Interested to read your response.

HereNow,

<<Oz Spen - why does religion advocate a violent, punishing god - after claiming that god is love? Why is threat, shame and fear the foundation of religion? Why does it's adherents think they have a right to threaten others? How is that spiritual? Interested to read your response.>>

Your ideology is coming through your straw man fallacy.

If you want a rational conversation, this comment is not the way to engage with me.

Dear HereNow,

I can only speak for myself.

However let me try to answer your questions.

Religion - certainly the Catholic religion in which
I grew up did preach hell and damnation. You're
absolutely right. Whenever I was naughty growing up
as a child, I used to think that "God'll get me for that."
I remember a very embarrassing moment. Fridays at my all
girls' school was when we went to Confession as a group.
There was one priest that we all dreaded to hear our
confessions because he was as deaf as a post. Well this
particular Friday - sure enough I had the misfortune
of being stuck with this man. I had him listening to
my confession. The girls waited for me outside - all
they could hear was this priest shouting - "You did WHAT?"
I came out of the confessional my face red as a beet,
and slinked into my pew - not looking at anyone while the
girls giggled at my demise.

I used to think that I was not religious. I'm probably
not a very good Catholic. I don't like what organised
religion has done to the world. However what I've learned
is that religion is internal, not external. The spirit
within us can't be blamed for the blasphemies carried out
in its name. What some have done in its name, projecting
their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the world does
not make religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid.
I've had some difficult times in my life - and religion
has helped me to cope. Prayer especially gives me a
peace that I can't find elsewhere.

I'm not sure that I've explained enough for you. Suffice to
say that I have my personal beliefs - however I have no
intention or wish to convert anyone else.

God bless you, Foxy!

---

Dear HereNow,

As OzSpen refused to answer your questions, please allow me to do so:

«why does religion advocate a violent, punishing god - after claiming that god is love?»

Because there are some people for whom imagining God to be that way is beneficial, especially for those who do want God but are not so good with self-discipline and are fearful of repeating some grave past mistake.

«Why is threat, shame and fear the foundation of religion?»

It is definitely not! It is merely a technique for helping some people with a weak self-discipline. This technique should be used sparingly and is not suitable for others, in fact it can even hinder their spiritual progress.

«Why does it's adherents think they have a right to threaten others? How is that spiritual?»

Most do not, only some, who do so because they fail to judge the situation correctly.
It is rarely right to threaten others unless they themselves requested you to do so.

As an example, we know that slapping other people is wrong, but say a tired driver who wants to remain awake asks the passenger besides him/her: "please slap me if you see me dosing off" - that would be appropriate!

(needless to mention that slapping someone who is not even driving at the time, is absolutely wrong)

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You.

Thank you Yuyutsu for stepping up where OzSpen was too cowardly to do so - issuing an insult instead while claiming to be superior Questions answered.