Withdrawal of artificial life support is not the same as "a deliberate intervention". It is the absence of intervention, which then allows nature to take its course. In my view there is a difference.
Exactly right, Ruby. Surely you can see the difference Wysiwyg?
Without the intervention of artificial life support, the person would be dead.
Voluntary euthanasia refers to the active intervention toward ending a life which would otherwise continue in unbearable suffering.
I must say this thread has never registered with me before now but it is compelling and thought provoking reading.
From my own personal experience, I believe that the option for a peaceful and dignified death at one's choosing rather than a painful and pointless death should be a basic human right. Much is made of the fact that 'healthy' individuals could potentially opt out due to issues with anxiety and/or depression. Surely this is not an insurmountable challenge? In the case of cancer, the views of oncologists and/or psychologists could be taken into account to ensure the option is only available to those with temrinal conditions and in severe physical or psychological pain.
Bushman, I'm so sorry to hear about your family members. That is the sort of shocking event we should be able to prevent.
About a decade ago, there was perfectly functional legislation introduced by the Northern Territory government. I'm a bit hazy about the details now, but I think three medical opinions had to be obtained before a person was given assistance to die. It was Dr Phillip Nitschke who essentially engineered this legislation with the full assistance of the then Territory government.
The patient had to be referred by their GP or treating doctor, and then had to obtain two further specialist opinions, one of which had to be from a psychiatrist. Surely that's enough of a safeguard.
The legislation was working well, allowing a few people to die peacefully, when the federal government, inspired by ****** Kevin Andrews, intervened and wiped the law.
The anti-euthanasia lobby likes to portray right to die legislation as meaning every faintly depressed person will just rock up to their local pharmacy and buy some lethal medication and off they go to die. Little objectivity or common sense is applied. Empathy and understanding of the suffering of so many people is dismissed as able to be coped with by palliative care.
I think palliative care is certainly better than it used to be, but the best pain relief in the world (and that's essentially all it offers, if that) can't remove the loss of dignity in needing to have someone toilet and wash you, feed you etc.
Why on earth, in an overpopulated world, do we need to keep people alive in this condition, using up valuable and expensive resources, when they would give everything they have to be allowed to die peacefully?
I wish they had had the legal euthanasia option open to them because then we could have seen them one more time to say good-bye and make our peace.
This is an aspect of suicide which is little discussed, but so very important.
To be able to be with the loved person, just to perhaps hold their hand as they die, would make so much difference both for the dying person and the remaining family.
To be human is to be compassionate and have empathy for the suffering of others. It disgusts me that people with no prospect for a peaceful death should be forced to kill themselves in secret or suffer an excruciating and futile death.
Bushman, you may like to become a member of Phillip Nitschke's "Exit".
The annual subscription is very modest, and it helps to support his continuous travelling all round Australia holding meetings to assist and advise people.
Ruby has also brought up "Dying with Dignity" which I gather performs a similar service.
The government's internet filter will, I gather, render some of these sites inaccessible. I have no words for Conroy et al.
I see today Ms Gillard has declared she is an atheist. Perhaps she will also display an enlightened view regarding voluntary euthanasia.