Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia

You say:

“I haven't seen any proposed solutions anywhere at all that would guarantee, what I accept would be a minority of cases, some people not getting away with essentially 'legalised' murder for their own personal gains.......and I doubt very much that anyone will ever come up any solutions if euthanasia was ever legalised here.”


Well, one day anarchy might set in, which can be seen daily from Dili, and our youngsters are capable to be cruel too, so time might come, that nobody will guarantee anything, we will be just pushed aside to starve or perish or we will be helped with brutal helping hand.

Knobby22 said:

I am completely with Noiru on this. Under Smurf's example the correct course of action is to have proper care supplied by the state. The state should provide all necessary support to the dying.

Click to expand...

Agreed in principle.

But one question immediately comes to mind. Government health services are already struggling to keep up with demand, a situation which seems likely to worsen given the aging population. So if we're going to have the state looking after the dying then I can't see that it could be done in any other than the most efficient (in terms of human resources needed) manner. That likely means putting the dying in nursing homes rather than having nurses in private homes. There just aren't enough nurses or other carers for the latter to be an option IMO.

no problem Happy

As I said in my original post, I'm not out to change anyone's views but to provide food for thought to those who are undecided one way or the other.

I am pro-life and so we'll just have to agree to disagree - but in case you are trying to change my views then you or anyone else will have to come up with something significantly more substantial to back up your arguments than you have so far before I would even consider changing my views.

At the end of the day, I'm not the one you have to convince

cheers

bullmarket

What seems right for me would be just going down to the local check out station when you think its time .

If I still have my mind , then its my choise to get out before the pain !
Local vets could give me the green dream ( the dose like a huge dog ) .

Every one will suffer Death, you need to plan yours !

Bob

There seem to be three general responses to the question:

1. Those who are convinced we should have the right to choose our time of dying given that our lives have become intolerable for whatever reason. This should not have to be just the control of pain: yes, morphine et al can control much pain, but for me personally I would be at least as devastated by being dependent on others to carry out personal care, feed me, etc as by pain itself. I would find it intolerable not to be able to look after myself.

2. Those who can mostly agree with the principle of being able to choose to die when life has become intolerable, but who do not trust either the system or their own families to administer the appropriate law without corruption.

3. Those whose religious beliefs preclude them even participating sensibly in any discussion of this nature as they are totally unprepared to consider any view other than their own. Such a view is respected, but please hold it as true for yourself and do not feel you have the right to have this view adopted for the population as a whole.

OK, so to those like Visual who come into category No. 2 (hope I have that right Visual?), would you feel reassured if there were stringent qualifications and conditions attached to anyone's right to end their life? To refer back to the short lived Northern Territory law, e.g., if a person had made clear their own personal wish to end their life, their permanent GP who had treated them for some time agreed that it was for that person the best solution to an intolerable situation, a consultant psychiatrist had interviewed the patient and their family to ascertain (a) the person's soundness of mind, (b) the consent by the family if any, and a third person, either an ethicist, lawyer or another doctor had been in agreement with all concerned, would you then feel it was OK to allow that person to end his/her life?

I do think a lot of the comment about voluntary euthanasia being "the start of the slippery slope" etc is somewhat hysterical. It need not be at all if the appropriate medical and legal parameters are worked out. It seems to be working well in the Netherlands, and indeed it seemed to be successful for the limited period it was used in the Northern Territory.

Seems extraordinary to me that we can be prosecuted for allowing an animal to suffer when death is inevitable, but we can't apply the same sensible rationale to ourselves.

Above all, I feel that for each individual it is his or her own life. We should not feel obligated to provide succour to anyone else's beliefs or obsessions.
If at some stage in the future I feel my life has become intolerable I simply cannot see why any other person should decree that I must continue to persist with it,

Julia

Julias last paragraph is the Paramount realization for those that still have their own mind.

As for You religious people, those two young kids that drowned recently in a tank.
Where was your god to help them ?

Bob.

Bobby said:

As for You religious people, those two young kids that drowned recently in a tank.
Where was your god to help them ?

Click to expand...

In HELL with Christ

Julia said:

3. Those whose religious beliefs preclude them even participating sensibly in any discussion of this nature as they are totally unprepared to consider any view other than their own. Such a view is respected, but please hold it as true for yourself and do not feel you have the right to have this view adopted for the population as a whole.

Click to expand...

Good comments Julia,

Equally, the atheists/agnostics skould tone it down also.

Let's be sensitive to other views and beliefs, eh? Discussion not doctrine.

Cheers

Julia said:

Seems extraordinary to me that we can be prosecuted for allowing an animal to suffer when death is inevitable, but we can't apply the same sensible rationale to ourselves.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

Julia,
it might be paranoid but nothing and no qualifications would make me agree with euthanasia being law.You could have the best people and the stringent laws in place but how would you legislate against human nature.An elderly mother being convinced to end her life,sure it would be her decision but how could you prevent the idea being placed in the first place,an accident victim left a parapligic,his parents might think that he be better off dead,using the dog analogy.Again he might then think that it was a good idea.Sorry when you make this thing into law it will always be abused.I dont trust people,with good reason.

Hi Julia

I probably fall into your option 3.

3. Those whose religious beliefs preclude them even participating sensibly in any discussion of this nature as they are totally unprepared to consider any view other than their own. Such a view is respected, but please hold it as true for yourself and do not feel you have the right to have this view adopted for the population as a whole.

Click to expand...

But imo people with religious beliefs are no less prepared to consider views other than their own than people without religious beliefs are prepared to consider beliefs other than their own.

What I see in this thread is simply people posting various views and I agree 100% with Visual's previous post.

I stated in my original post that I am pro-life and that I am not trying to change anyone's view but simply providing food for thought to those that are undecided one way or the other

cheers

bullmarket

bullmarket said:

But imo people with religious beliefs are no less prepared to consider views other than their own than people without religious beliefs are prepared to consider beliefs other than their own.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But you've demonstrated many times that you are not one of those people. You have never shown the slightest sign that you consider any views at all. You don't even consider your own; you just hold them no matter what.

Cheers,

Ghoti

Hi ghotib

I disagree with you.

If you look back at my posts in the RU496 thread and in this thread you will see that I posted on several occasions that I am not trying to change anyone's views but simply providing food for thought to those who are undecided one way or the other.

Everyone is entitled to their own views and I don't have a problem with that at all. All I am doing is posting and sticking up for my views just as others have posted and stuck up for theirs....so I'm not sure what issue you might have with my posts......if you disagree with my views, that is fine by me

Obviously I disagree with some other peoples' views just as they disagree with my views, but that is fine by me because as I said I'm not trying convince anyone to change their views

cheers

bullmarket

Off track again, but I think, that sooner or later, of course if we all don’t get wiped out before, by some catastrophic event like terrestrial collision or 100% wipeout terrorist attack, there will be a breakaway group, which will start to use genetic technology to eradicate genes responsible for certain cancers or blood or any disorders.

If it can be done, one day somebody will say - heck with natural selection lets give it a nudge.
And it will be breakaway, as they will not be willing to carry the financial burden of heart disease; diabetics infested population to mention a couple.

Wen we look at certain groups, they have capacity to carry out the task, if not, new group will be formed.
Some people are anxious to get the ball rolling already to have perfect babies.

So, irrespectively of if we like it or not. It is gonna happen.

And that’s no Bull.

As to me, I am not that interested in perfection, but would be nice if I could one-day post: I told you so



Back to topic -
Say for example it would by run by Centerlink and almighty Mr Jorgman or any other fearless bureaucrat.
And people have to hop hoops
Like: cognition, language skills, mobility, ability to take up food, drinks, defecate, urinate
Say best score 100% lowest score to live 1%, 0% gets the chop.

Say, suffering people, with terminal illness, in pain, immobilised, without will to live could opt to ask for 0%.

Of course too simplistic, but a start.

Why, one might say?
Well, for little population as Australia, we have 500,000 unemployed, so for starters we have 500,000 spare people, minus dole bludgers I suppose.

Also emergency departments in hospitals are choco block of old people

We have Medicare crisis, hospital crisis, with Medicare run dental services have up to 12 years waiting lists.

We have shortage of housing commission accommodation, about 2 to 5 years waiting lists, with current system according to needs, which means that some can wait indefinitely.

There are long term forecasts that retirees will make 25% of general population in 10 years or sooner.


And just a thought on comments above -
If religious people have strong beliefs, they can look after their own and not leave it to Medicare.


I think that sooner or later there will be formal segmentation of services, now everybody is lead to believe that there is equality.
But if in doubt look at benefits provided with Prime Ministers Medicare Gold card FOR NATURAL LIFE at everybody else’s expense.

and thats what i`ve been saying about human nature,
already Happy is targeting old people and the unemployed for selection,
so regardless of whatever tests he himself has advocated he already knows who to go after.

I know you are Visual, but have your vision checked my friend.

All I said that -

WE HAVE 500,000 SPARE PEOPLE TO TAKE UP THE SLACK IF GIVEN OPPORTUNITY, of course minus the dole bludgers who will do anything to do nothing.

And if anything I would give them opportunity to excel.

Happy,
dont understand the relevance of euthanasia with the unemployed,sorry

hi Happy

Imo we are at virtually full employment atm and so your argument falls down imo.

I think you'll find that any reputable economist will tell you that it is actually healthy, economically, to have a small percentage of the work force in unemployment because, amongst other things, if we had 0% unemployment then wages/salaries etc would go through the roof because employers would have to pay ever increasing wages/salaries and who knows what other benefits to attract or poach employees from other employers......and if wages/salaries sky rocket then so will inflation and if inflation shoots up then so do interest rates and we all know what happens then.........the :fan :

But I think we are going off topic now.

cheers

bullmarket

you guys lost me,whats unemplyiment got to do with euthanasia.

Hi visual

visual said:

you guys lost me,whats unemplyiment got to do with euthanasia.

Click to expand...

I'm with you - I don't think unemployment has got anything to do with euthanasia at all.

I was just explaining why imo Happy's argument using unemployment breaks down even though it has nothing to do with euthanasia.

cheers

bullmarket